Showing posts with label Bad Directors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bad Directors. Show all posts

Friday, July 1, 2022

THE QUANTUM STORM .357 E-MAGAZINE ISSUE 10 IS RELEASED!

 

INDIE FILMS DON'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS NEED A BUDGET TO BEGIN PRODUCTION. LISTEN TO INTERVIEWS WITH INDIE FILM PROFESSIONALS WHO GIVE YOU THE BEST INFORMATION CONCERNING HOW TO PRODUCE YOUR NEXT FILM.
Indie Low Budget Shoot
EXCITING NEWS! WE'VE BROKEN THE 18,000 SUBSCRIPTION MARK AND IT ONLY TOOK US EIGHT MONTHS. A BIG THANKS GOES OUT TO ALL OUR E-MAGAZINE SUPPORTERS. WE PROMISE TO CONTINUE TO PRODUCE TOP QUALITY REPORTING FOR YOU!
 
 BUT YOU MUST BE A SUBSCRIBER TO VIEW THIS NEW ISSUE OF THE QUANTUM STORM .357 E-MAGAZINE AND FOLLOW THIS BLOG
 
 Thank you for stopping by!

Sunday, April 24, 2022

FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND FILM ASPECT RATIOS MIGHT TANK YOUR FIRST FILM

Indie films suffer all the time due to first time film makers failing to use proper film formatting when they present their first project, whether its a film released on the internet or their film trailer released for anyone to see on an international level, making an impression on people [and indie judges] will come from how you present your film. This blog is presented to you from the notes of any first semester of film school. Your knowledge of Aspect ratios and compression etiquette can help you make the first best impression at the start of your presentation...so take notes!

Aspect ratios in film and television have changed over the years, but the one thing that stays consistent is people's desire to create and show their work in the proper format. So if you're making movies, short films, commercials, TV shows, or just shooting with friends, make sure you know the aspect ratio where you're going to upload or project. 

Whether you're watching a show on your iPhone, setting up your new 70in 4K television, or sitting your butt in a theater, aspect ratio matters. The aspect ratio refers to the size of the image displayed on your screen. While this sounds technical, aspect ratios can help storytellers add another layer to their repertoire. Also, for independent filmmakers and huge studio directors, the right aspect ratio can attract more viewers and create a buzz around your film or TV show. 

There's a lot to learn when it comes to aspect ratios. Like which aspect ratios matter in social media and which aspect ratios make sense for Netflix and Amazon versus theatrical. The aspect ratio of an image describes the width and height. It's usually written as two numbers separated by a colon, as in 16:9. It can also be written with an “x” between the numbers. Like 3x4.
 
Aspect ratios have changed over time, depending on what people use to view media. As screens got bigger, aspect ratio adjusted. As they got smaller, it continued to happen. Over 100 years ago, the very first films were projected in 4:3. The standard film strip was run through a projector and light behind it through the image onto a wall. The 4:3, or 1.33:1, was the literal measurement of the strip.

As film evolved, so did the aspect ratio. Film strips eventually became 1.37:1, and that became the standard for cinema across the globe. 1.37:1 was the ratio officially approved by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1932. They made it the standard and people started calling it the Academy Ratio. In the 1950s, TV became ever more popular. People started going to the theater less, and theatrical distributors knew they needed to make a change. So they went even bigger, with Cinerama.  

Cinerama was the first widescreen format to be introduced after the Academy Ratio became a standard in 1932. It involved projecting images from three synchronized 35mm projectors onto a deeply-arced screen. It utilized aspect ratios of 2.59:1 to 2.65:1 to make images seem huge.

CinemaScope used aspect ratios of 2.35:1 to 2.66:1. It only had to use one projector to get the image on the screen, so it was preferable to Cinerama. Developed by Earl Sponable, who was the head of research at 20th Century Fox, CinemaScope was last used in 1967, the term "scope" is still used by projectionists and filmmakers to refer to any movie that uses anamorphic lenses or with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 or more.

It's funny to think that even in the 1960s, theaters were trying to find a way to get people to watch less television and to come to the movies. Especially since we're having similar troubles today. Nowadays, if you want to go to the theater to see something projected, you can choose from 35mm or the much larger 70mm.

70mm has caught back on recently, since Tarantino, Nolan, and Paul Thomas Anderson have all elected to have their films projected in the huge format. 70mm boasts an aspect ratio of 2.76:1 – twice as large as the standard 35mm film. 70mm was what put Ben-Hur on the map in 1959, and now it's a way that filmmakers are getting people out to see the spectacle. 70mm is often combined with IMAX formats. 

The modern IMAX design uses 70mm film that is shown horizontally with a massive 15 perforations per frame, giving it approximately six times the resolution of 35mm film. The average IMAX screen size is approximately 72' x 50' (22m x 16m), which is significantly larger than traditional movie screens of approximately 50' x 20' (16m x 6.1m).

TV boxes were 4:3 until widescreen televisions debuted in the 2000s. Many older programs had to convert their 4:3 shows to 16x9. But people who watched movies on TV rejoiced. The theatrical experience had finally come home. And as TVs grew in size, aspect ratios began to reflect the change.

So now we're in the digital era. We don't have to rely on the size of the film stock to reflect our aspect ratio. And if you have the money to shoot in 70mm, you still might not want to. People are creating lots of different media content. We're shooting shorts, digital series, movies, TV shows, commercials, Instagram videos, Facebook posts, and Snapchats

If you're going to do it for the 'gram, you should do it with the right aspect ratio. Instagram has specific guidelines for what works on its site. 

  1. Square (1:1)
  2. Standard Horizontal (16:9)
  3. Alt Horizontal (1.91:1)
  4. Vertical (4:5)

We all love to shoot stuff to post on Facebook. Whether its the trailer for your new venture or a web series, you want people to be able to like and share the best content. Facebook supports:  

  1. 16x9
  2. 9x16
  3. 4x5
  4. 2x3
  5. 1x1

You can upload phone videos, movie trailers, and fluidly share videos from all other social channels if they occur in the aforementioned formats.

Like Facebook, Twitter is a great place to get your message out there. It's great to get retweets and social engagements. Twitter is one of the best places to get your message put to the people and to interact individually. Twitter supports the following aspect ratios: 

  1. 1x1  1200 X 1200
  2. 2x1 1200 X 600
  3. 3x2 1200 X 800

So here's the deal: lately, some streaming services have been cutting off almost 25% of movies by reformatting them to fit 16x9 televisions. While this practice is supposed to stop, with letterboxes being added to share the proper format, you should still be aware. If you're creating content for Netflix, Amazon, or HBO, you should know their aspect ratios. That way you'll know how your work is presented on the screen.  

Netflix, Amazon and HBO shows almost everything in 16x9. So if you're trying to watch a movie that's natively in 2.39:1, you're going to get the black bars. They also have been known to use 2:1 aspect ration. This aspect ratio is also used in many new Netflix series and is less wide than scope, but still gives the viewer the sense of a wide screen.

Okay, we've gone through lots of different kinds of aspect ratios, but now it's time to talk about how aspect ratio can help your story. Think about how Christopher Nolan used IMAX and 70mm to give Dunkirk the largest aspect ratio possible.  Making Dunkirk huge wasn't just to drive people to the theater. It was to envelop audiences in the heat of battle, to make them feel the pressure of these men, and to give the entire story scope. 

Squeezing that movie into a more boxy proportion makes you feel the claustrophobia of the world we're in. We're under pressure and going through our passion with Reverend Toller. It also gives the movie a more classical feel. It's a throwback, like the church, and an homage to Hollywood of yesteryear. 

Your aspect ratio is not just a mathematical tool. It's also a way to enter your story and add another layer. First time film producers should consider a director that knows the required formats to any project that lands a prospective film project. It takes more than learning the lingo to get your film in the right Aspect Ratio to impress the right people. Don't shoot a film just to shoot it on video, learn to do the shit the right way before you come off looking like some amateur idiot in the local Indie Film Scene. So think about what you really want to do before you start shooting!

Good luck out there!

D. R. Quintana
Director/Producer

Sunday, July 25, 2021

EPIC INDIE SURGE FAILS WITH “UNDER THE SKIN”

🎥 🎞 Movie Review 🎞 🎥 - UNDER THE SKIN - [R] - Amazon Prime [2014] - Independent films come and go every year. You would have thought that the term "independent film" would have actually meant; "Made by complete nobodies with a micro-budget that fails in comparison with big Hollywood, but hey, this one has some class in it." But Skin is the proverbial "slap in the face" that proves that some Independent films, even ones written so badly, can somewhat aspire if you throw in a big Hollywood name, especially one who has an upcoming summer action film, and present her naked for all to see in a cheesy, classless pile-of-shit.
 
Now, not all piles-of-shit have a half life of zero seconds, and please keep in mind that Scarlett Johansson truly didn't do anything in this film that made me think, "Hey, this is where her real career started!" - nope, it was way far from that. Directed by Jonathan Glazer, who also wrote the script with Walter Campbell, this pile-of-shit won some big Indie film awards for it's musical score, the direction, and of Johansson's performance[???]...Uhhmnn, did I miss something here? I think that most of this films success comes from the fact that Brad Pitt was somewhat involved in it's development and casting.
 
Well, lets break down the story little and you tell me what big success this pile really has to offer it's viewers...most of whom will be males after I reveal the big surprise in the film. Okay, so without any real description, an alien arrives on earth and becomes a woman. She is helped by a biker-alien who loves to zoom around the countryside looking for her. She wonders from town to town, trapping men into entering an abandoned house, luring them in with sexy temptations to walk into a black muck of liquid that traps them - like the Venus fly trap plant. She discovers that she's more woman than alien and it becomes her weakness; I think Johansson delivers maybe twelve [12] full lines of dialog throughout the movies run...Oh, did I mention that Johansson reveals her naked body seven [7] times in the film, even revealing her bird in a closeup?  If you ever wanted to know what you might expect if you had a chance with her in bed, this is your chance to see her in the nude...yep, that's it.
 
The director claims that there was this really heavy CGI sequence in the film that he really wanted to keep in, but that it was taken out from the film to leave more questions about the alien motif and their technology, which was not explained at all. There are two parts of the films special effects that really took me into SciFi/fantasy excitement, but it came at the end of the movie and there was nothing more question as the en credits popped up after starring into several snowflakes landing on the camera lens; like a quasi Forrest Gump ending. The visual effects were sharp and produced well, but the aimless walking, scenes without dialog, and the doll-like performance by Johansson did not move me at all to keep focused on the film; it definitely did show a glimpse of why she might have been picked to play the lead role in Ghost in the Shell.
 
The cinematography was okay. Most of the film was shot in a guerilla-style filming format which the director felt at the time that he wanted to "catch real peoples reaction" to whatever the alien was doing when walking through town. In my opinion this whole award winning film was a waste of time and just another reason to build up the "what does Johansson's body really look like under all of that plastic and leather" curiosity with her male friends. I'm sure if your male, you won't pass on this movie...I certainly didn't. ⭐️ ⭐️ 💫   [2.5 of 5 Stars]

Thursday, July 15, 2021

“TOMORROW WAR” TECHNICALLY AND TRANSPARENTLY DISAPPOINTS

🎥 🎞 Movie Review 🎞 🎥- THE TOMORROW WAR - [PG13] - Amazon Prime - Chris Pratt leaves this fundamentally flawed movie with a plot so predictable, that it just took the fun out of watching this pile of over dramatic, poorly scripted crap that I wish I had ever decided to watch for a fun evening. Chris basically plays the same character he played in "Guardians of the Galaxy," always obnoxious and filled with quick comebacks.

Presented with some fantastic graphic effects, this mesh up of crap tries to pull off a chaotic, fast paced atmosphere with some badly placed emotional slow downs that can only be saved by another rupture of alien prowess that suddenly no one in the film ever expected. Adding to that, there are too many similar plot devices in this movie that were obviously taken from the Tom Cruise 2014 film, EDGE OF TOMORROW; which now in hindsight, makes me giggle as even the titles of the two projects are similar. In both movies, the "alien species" that is invading the earth has a male and female species who are vital to defeating the enemy. At least in Cruise's "Edge of Tomorrow" movie, they at least explained the male and female species, where in this stupid movie, there's no explanation about how the leading scientist first discovered the male and female species.

Take for instance, the "toxin" that is constantly brought up in the movies plot, there's no explanation how the science team found out about it, or what female alien was originally captured and studied. You just have to accept that it as done at some point not shown and that's how it is, so sit back and take it. And in this film it's up to Chris' character to save the day by bringing a cure for the "toxin" back to the future, while he has to find a way to save his futuristic daughter. And lets not talk about how in movies, anyone can just jump onto plane and fly into Russian airspace...Whoah, boy!

Some funny things to note; (1) I laugh that the inconsistencies of the weapons used in the film premise. In the beginning, the bullets used in the film have little effect on the alien hoards thick skin, but toward the end of the movie, the bullets have enough effect to kill them on impact...yeah, you'll see that in the movie. (2) The movie does a horrible injustice to "time and relativity" and sells short of explaining how time works and how traveling through time can have repercussions if the time traveler doesn't respect how time works. And BIG number (3), Global Warming is the sole reason why the aliens began to thrive on the planet...SERIOUSLY???

I need to create a "DOGSHIT" rating for crappy films like this. ⭐️⭐️⭐️ [3 of 5 Stars]