Is FrameForge worth buying for storyboarding?

[Paul R Johnson]

I remember standing around the monitor for an 'industrial' shoot I did - ultra, ultra boring. The Managing Director stood stony faced while we went through everything we'd shot during the day, and he started to shake his head at various takes, which were from different setups during the day - which he'd already given the nod to, before we struck the sets, and moved the kit. The shakes were getting worse and worse, and in the end, he was looking really worried. I took him to one side and asked what the problem was? In my head, I knew ....... the script was woolly in parts, one of the locations had a calendar on the wall which would date it, some of the locations had occasional mechanical noises from the shop floor. I didn't think anyone would have noticed these, bar me, so I'd been happy to move on and stop doing retakes caused by the talent's lack of it!

"He looks like a toad". I was dumbfounded. The person cast as the presenter wasn't my suggestion. I'm afraid that I wanted the usual standard looking female presenter who was attractive and knew how to present. Probably too 'sit' to put in print in this sensitive world nowadays, but that was why I wanted her over the others in the frame. The MD vetoed her because she knew nothing about chemical processes and people would not take her seriously. We went with a 55 year old, grey haired chemical engineer. He was short, a little overweight, had heavy jowls and read the autocue like robocop. The actress I wanted would have been better in every sense.

Looking at the monitor, he did in fact look rather like a toad now it was pointed out.

Maybe I took Ryan's approach for the problem? I had headroom, so I stretched him vertically, and then gave his pasty, palid skin colour a sunny holiday in post. The client was happy (er).

After delivery, we had a meet up to discuss potential follow ups - he asked if using the non-technical girl would have been better? I told him that in my view it would, pointing out that we got to take 14 at one point, and a trained actress would probably have needed one take, maybe two if she stumbled over a chemical name? We would have saved crew costs by probably a day, for 4 people, and reduced edit time too. As he was paying for all this, including overnight stays and food for everyone, his budget took a fairly big hit by not using the right presenter. One person caused quite a big overrun. He told me that this man was an expert at chemical engineering, and we wanted him to present. Trouble was, he wasn't an expert at reading autocue, or acting, or looking at cameras, or even remembering where to stand. Spike marks on the floor failed too, because he kept looking down at them.

I think that in any video product, the key feature that the audience relate to is not the shallow depth of field, the stability of the image, the colourist's work, maybe even the set - but the actors. It's the actors who carry their roles, or don't. The technology is almost irrelevant. This is why people can make successful movies on tiny budgets with crazily basic and cheap kit. The eye, the ear and the mind hook into the characters.

Remember Ryan's time machine movie we looked at ages ago. We picked holes in it based on the technical things, but would we have noticed these if the actors had been good? I guess the script perhaps didn't help, but decent actors can often make the words less important by understanding them, and delivering them in the best way.

This topic started looking at storyboarding. This tells the story as the person in charge intended. We then go off and make it happen. If it's not in the storyboard - it won't be on the shooting schedule. At what point do you suddenly decide to shoot extra material, and why?

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

How do you storyboard for different angles, just in case. If you do one shot until you are satisfied, then why would you shoot again from another angle? Have a plan, and follow it. You cannot shoot everything twice, just in case - this is just strange stuff, Ryan. Were you told to do this by one of the 'experts'?

Oh I just learned this from my own experience, is that sometimes you think a shot will look good in camera, but then other people will tell you that there is something wrong with it later. Like on here for example, with the time travel one, people told me that they it didn't make sense to them when the woman left the room, because they couldn't see it. I thought if I just edited the villains reaction to it, the audience would still be able to follow that she left the room, since she walks away. I didn't think we actually needed to see her go out the exit door.

However, because people were not able to process that she actually left the room and went out the door, I still have shots of her going out the door in case I needed them, which I could put in to fix the mistake.

So my own experience it's good to get everything from different shots, just in case the audience cannot follow something later. But that's just one example, there were others where that happened as well.

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

This topic started looking at storyboarding. This tells the story as the person in charge intended. We then go off and make it happen. If it's not in the storyboard - it won't be on the shooting schedule. At what point do you suddenly decide to shoot extra material, and why?

Oh I would put the extra shots on the storyboards. I wouldn't decide on them while shooting.

[Brian Drysdale]

That was a poor editing decision by you, unless the audience can see what's happening they can't guess what's going on in your head. You can lead them to believe she's left if you cut to the reaction shot just before she walks out through the door, the audience will then assume the people watching are reacting to her leaving the room.

However, if something happens that is out of the norm, eg the person walks into a time warp in the doorway, you'll have to show that happening and then cut to the reaction. The audience can't guess that based on their experience of the world.

[Brian Drysdale]

For a different approach to film making see "Monsters", There were no storyboards or script just a treatment, but Gareth Edwards had practical experience as a visual effects artist, It was shot with a Sony PMW-EX3, Nikon Nikkor Lenses (with Letus Ultimate adapter)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_(2010_film)

Monsters (2010) Official Trailer #1 - Sci-fi Movie HD - YouTube

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

That was a poor editing decision by you, unless the audience can see what's happening they can't guess what's going on in your head. You can lead them to believe she's left if you cut to the reaction shot just before she walks out through the door, the audience will then assume the people watching are reacting to her leaving the room.

However, if something happens that is out of the norm, eg the person walks into a time warp in the doorway, you'll have to show that happening and then cut to the reaction. The audience can't guess that based on their experience of the world.

Oh okay, but you see movies where a person will leave the room and they do not show them actually leave and just hold on the reaction shots of people watching them leave. So I cannot tell the difference between movies that do that, compared to mine.

As for the movie monsters, I should check it out. However, I do not want scripts and storyboards cause I think they will help. I mean I imagine it would be very difficult to pitch a movie to people to make, without a script, and just a treatment of course.

[Brian Drysdale]

If something unexpected happens that the audience don't see, they'll just assume that the normal physical world exists and the people in the reaction shot are reacting to that world. If what you're doing differs from that the audience will be confused. You can't copy and paste from other films, you're telling your story and the audience can't tell what's happening unless you've already set it up by them seeing it and establishing the rules of your world earlier in the film

Usually you don't pitch with the script, you have it for the next stage when the funders have seen the pitch documents with a very short synopsis and heard your pitch, then they'll read the script if they're interested (in some cases the final decision maker may have never read the script) In this case. Gareth Edwards knew the production company and improvising with non actors on location was part of the proposal that he pitched to them, so, in this case, the treatment makes sense. The company knew what he could do from his TV work.

Yet another method: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/m...leigh-way.html

[Josh Bass]

That last sentence is possibly the most important.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

If something unexpected happens that the audience don't see, they'll just assume that the normal physical world exists and the people in the reaction shot are reacting to that world. If what you're doing differs from that the audience will be confused. You can't copy and paste from other films, you're telling your story and the audience can't tell what's happening unless you've already set it up by them seeing it and establishing the rules of your world earlier in the film

Usually you don't pitch with the script, you have it for the next stage when the funders have seen the pitch documents with a very short synopsis and heard your pitch, then they'll read the script if they're interested (in some cases the final decision maker may have never read the script) In this case. Gareth Edwards knew the production company and improvising with non actors on location was part of the proposal that he pitched to them, so, in this case, the treatment makes sense. The company knew what he could do from his TV work.

Yet another method: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/m...leigh-way.html

Oh okay, that's an interesting article. When it comes to storyboarding and shooting for the edit, do you think instead of being inspired by shots and editing decisions in other movies, that I should try to storyboard the shots in a totally original style of my own, as well as the editing without thinking of other movies' styles? It's just if I do that, I fear that maybe it might be too different for people to accept, and don't want to break any filmmaking rules or preferences of course.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

"You can't copy and paste from other films"

I feel like this has been said by multiple people in various forms. I understand your desire to emulate professional movies but you'll end up being dependent on copying other peoples work instead of thinking for yourself . The most important skill you should be working on is to visually story tell by yourself. I can say from personal experience it doesn't come naturally. Maybe you should film scenes by yourself or a friend with a dslr and put a rough edit together to tell a short story until it becomes second nature. Watching movies and filming movies are two different experiences.

Imagine if you were an aspiring author trying to write a book and for every chapter you would try to emulate a different famous author. You'd end up with a terrible mess of a story. In the end all that matters is that it makes sense and entertains the audience. If you for whatever reason have difficulty or can't make that judgement then you're not going to be able to make progress as a film maker.

[Ryan Elder]

Well I've made a few shorts so far as worked on other peoples. I don't have enough money to keep making them and wanted to make a feature with the money I have. But I also want to be able to get a lot of second opinions while making it as well though, to know I am on the right track.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

It's a tough business to learn or make money at. I frankly don't know how you've been able to keep at it this long. The point being thinking for yourself is valuable and transferable skill, emulating others movies not so much.

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks, it's just I feel if I try to come up with an original shot and editing style, that maybe it won't be accepted, if that makes sense?

Out of curiosity, is it strange that I kept at it this long?

[Paul R Johnson]

If you had your own technique and shooting style that would be good, but you don't! You are trying to emulate little bits of everyone else's and that's why you have problems. You are learning wrong. You don't have the courage to stick to your instincts. I think you could learn to be a good member of the crew in some role, but you consistently show us that your are ill suited to be at the top of the pyramid, as you demonstrate constantly every decision you make you are uncertain of, or need to consult others. You are the boss of a cooperative which is always a paperwork position, not a creative one. You will spend your money and if he process you feel is worth that money, it's ok. I doubt it will ever e a career. Sorry, but it's painting by numbers, not real art!

[Brian Drysdale]

If you wish to direct you should see the film through your own eyes, don't even think what other directors have done. You may be subconsciously influenced by them and become aware of it at a later stage, which is fine, but if you are aware at the time, do the complete opposite. Strangely, if you do the complete opposite to the cliche in films it tends to work.

You should know what the film you're making is about and by that I don't mean the plot. It's not original shots and editing that's important, it's telling the story in an original way that matters.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. Well I guess the reason why I am uncertain of my own decisions is because other people tell me that they are wrong, but should I own those decisions and believe they are right, regardless of what other people tell me then?