3 Minute Horror Short... DEATH ROW

[Brian Duke]

Originally Posted by Mike Horrigan

I had to squeeze everything in under 3 minutes so I did my best... but I have no hard feelings at all. I'll do my best to answer a few things...

1. Yes, the priest was killed by a couple of inmates. If you listen to the dialogue as the kids are walking down the hall, they discuss how the priest was caught doing "something" to the Warden's son. (I show this as flashes during the opening credits) They mention the riot that followed, the priest being murdered and the prison being shut down 50 years ago.

2. I had to reveal him as I was running out of time... ;)

3. Watch the HQ version, you can clearly see the bag over the head of the priest as he is being dragged on the floor by the inmates. You can even make out the rosary in his hand if you look close enough. That's the connection. Can't really make any of it out in the poor quality version.

4. The priest was murdered 50 years ago as mentioned by one of the kids... he IS a ghost. I actually don't expect people to get this on the first viewing. That was actually intentional. I hate movies that spell everything out.

Just do me one favour, watch the HQ version, listen to the dialoque, and let me know if all this makes sense. I do appreciate the critique! No harm at all.

I did a lot of things wrong... learning as I go.

Mike, I did watch the HQ version, and twice, but again, I'm afraid that none of the things you tell me came across visually or verbally. I'm guilty of the same mistakes, which is why I want to share my point of view in hopes of helping your vision come across.

You are right about NOT spelling things out, but that is when you TELL the audience what is going on, such as with voice over or within the dialogue. That wasn't the problem. The problem is that the visual images do not support what you are trying to get across. A great tool is watching silent movies where you need to learn the story through images and no dialogue and very little, if any, text. If you turn off the sound of your movie can you still tell what it is about? If not, there probably is a problem. The length of a movie is immaterial with respect to being able to show a narative story. You be surprised how much you can show in a short amount of time. Look at good commericals that don't have dialogue.

People should get it on the first viewing, at least the main plot. Subplots and hidden messages that are generally not important to the main story and can obviously be discovered on subsequent viewings, but to expect an audience to go back and watch it more than once to "get it" is probably not the best idea in my opinion.

Again, I saw the things, but they weren't clear as to what they meant. Seems like a lot of flashy images without any real connection. Another suggestion, never rely on dialogue to tell a story. SHOW, don't TELL, and you have something. An example of this is to have an actor throw a dish without saying anything to SHOW anger, rather than saying I'm angry. This way you don't need sound to tell a story. Good actors can also SHOW emotions rather than telling them. That's just my 4 more cents. Otherwise you live and learn. I sure do all the time.

[Mike Horrigan]

Originally Posted by Brian Duke

Mike, I did watch the HQ version, and twice, but again, I'm afraid that none of the things you tell me came across visually or verbally.

That's interesting because other people "got" some of what you didn't on the first viewing. They saw the bag over the priest’s head as he was being dragged away and they made the connection. They heard that he was murdered 50 years ago during the conversation and made the connection that he was a ghost at the end.

I mean... some of it is verbally spoken; yet you say that it didn't come across verbally? I don't get that part?

No big deal though. It wasn't your cup of tea and I'm cool with that.

Still, had I had more time... I definitely would have made it a little clearer... but not much. ;)

That's just the way I like it.

[Mike Horrigan]

Originally Posted by Brian Duke

You are right about NOT spelling things out, but that is when you TELL the audience what is going on, such as with voice over or within the dialogue.

I call that spelling it out. Especially when using a voice over...

Originally Posted by Brian Duke

But to expect an audience to go back and watch it more than once to "get it" is probably not the best idea in my opinion.

This is where we disagree; I love movies that make me do that.

Originally Posted by Brian Duke

Another suggestion, never rely on dialogue to tell a story.

That kind of contradicts your first quote above..? "but that is when you TELL the audience what is going on, such as with voice over or within the dialogue."

Sorry, I think we are just looking at this from two different perspectives. Yes, I want to get better at telling a story in less than 3 minutes. No, I don't mind if people have to watch it more than once to really get it.

Still, what about the people who "got it" on the first viewing? There were some comments posted on heavy.com stating just that before they added the new batch of videos.

I'll find a happy medium I'm sure.

Thanks again, I really do appreciate this.

Mike

[Shaughan Flynn]

I enjoyed it. Definately had a really creepy feel to it. And, I must admit, I did jump =).

Kudos!

[Brian Duke]

Mike, these are just MY observations, again, take it with a grain of salt. If you think it works, then cool with me. I just offered my perspective and, PS, I think you misinterpreted some of what I want to get across. I meant that when you spell things out in movies such as voice over, having dialogue "on the nose" it generally shows a lack in the story, but again, some movies work like that. However, there are a lot of people that think voice over is cheating. I am not one of them (if it is done right), but I also think that even good movies with voice-overs are clearly narrated through the visual images without the sound. We learned that in film school watching movies and turning off sound. I remember "Bad Lands" being one.

In any event, good luck with it, and I hope you didn't become defensive reading my comments.

My only last advice is not to count on people not only having to get it after several viewing, but that they would actually watch it again. Thus, grab the first time so they are interested enough to watch it again, and maybe see other things they didn't catch the first time.

[Mike Horrigan]

Originally Posted by Brian Duke

My only last advice is not to count on people not only having to get it after several viewing, but that they would actually watch it again. Thus, grab the first time so they are interested enough to watch it again, and maybe see other things they didn't catch the first time.

Great advice!

Thanks,

Mike

[Mike Horrigan]

Originally Posted by Shaughan Flynn

I enjoyed it. Definately had a really creepy feel to it. And, I must admit, I did jump =).

Kudos!

Awesome! Glad you liked it. Still waiting to hear who won the contest...
They plan to announce it on the website but they didn't update last night.

Still waiting...