FILM SCHOOL ABRIDGED - THE CHEAT SHEET

A while ago I started a little side project called 'Lens Cracker'. I always liked the idea, but I never really did much with it save for a rough cut of the pilot. Consider this the magnum opus.

Early this October I set out with the lofty goal of the basics of Film School into a single 8x10 sheet of paper. This is what I came up with.

THE FILM TECHNIQUE CHEAT SHEET

I like it, frankly. The information on here, though certainly not all-inclusive by any stretch of the imagination, is indispensable in any on-set situation. It's designed as a tool. People to print out and keep in their pocket whenever their shooting. The problem is that it's only a reference sheet; it's only helpful to those who already know what everything means. Chances are good that most reading this blog won't.

So let's change that.

Starting next week I'll be posting bite-sized explanations of everything on this sheet. It'll take a while, but it gives me an excuse to post more regularly.

Cheers for now!

Oh! And post any comments or questions and I'll address them in following installments.

JUDGING THE GCA: NOMINATIONS PART 4

Someone brought up an interesting question to me; when judging the visual appeal of a series, do I judge the merit of a single episode, or the series as a whole.

I do try to take into account the series as a whole, but I use individual episodes to stand in. This is easier with series that I'm already familiar with, where I will look at the series at its most visually ambitious, but for those that I'm not I will look at the visual style from at least two episodes released at different times (i.e. a more recent episode and an older one). Essentially I watch enough to get a sense of why the show was nominated for its visuals.

I will admit this isn't always perfect, but I'm fairly confident in it over-all. An example of this I will absolutely admit to this limitation is Animated Analysis. I'd watched the most recent episode The Brave Little Toaster, and as a control group I looked at the framing and visuals in The Brony Phenomenon and Sonic Underground (not the full episodes, but I scanned through them). A later look at Top 8 Insane Animated Villains shows that the show does on occasion have strong cinematography.

But enough stalling. Ladies and gentlemen, the final nominations from the Visual Appeal category.



17. SPOONY - THE SPOONY EXPERIMENT

Spoony

EPISODES WATCHED:
Final Fantasy X-2 - Part 2
Final Fantasy X Finale

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I have followed this series for some time.

MY THOUGHTS:
The visual effects, when the show has them, are handled well more often than not. As with the green screen effect. The editing is solid. There are some moments of decent shot composition through the series, but it's not consistently strong visually.



18. SINDRA - KEEP PLAYING

Sindra

EPISODES WATCHED:
Rewind - Sonic 20th Part 1
Rewind - Sonic 20th Part 2
Rewind - Diablo (PS1)

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I had not heard of this series previously.

MY THOUGHTS:
Low production values with no distinctive visual style to speak of. Some interesting costumes.



19. ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD

Angry Video Game Nerd

EPISODE WATCHED:
Dark Castle

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I had not heard of this series previously.

Kidding.

MY THOUGHTS:
Set design is paid attention to. In the past lighting has tended to be a bit over-exposed, but has improved in more recent episodes (still no backlight, though). The show is frequently ambitious in its shots and action sequences. Very few shots pop.



20. DAVID A. ROSE - DVD SHELF MOVIE REVIEWS

DVD Shelf Movie Reviews

EPISODES WATCHED:
Mask of the Phantasm
An American Werewolf in London

MY PROCESS:
I hadn't heard of this series in the slightest when I started this out. To be honest, I wasn't expecting much out of it going in with the fairly bland title.

Popping it on, after a short but promising title sequence I was greeted with this image.

Here the character feels drained of color, and the sharpied-on 'MOVIES!' didn't help the first impression. On the background, the note I took reads: Background, though appropriate, feels artificial. Not especially compelling.

I say that because I want to give a sense of where my mindset is at this point. I found the material surrounding the show, such as the screens for the show-trivia and the title graphic design were visually strong. The all-too short moments of animation were like-wise top notch.

And then, as the episode drew to a close, the background I'd taken as a bland Photoshop design suddenly became dynamic as the camera craned up and out into the credits. Seamlessly.

My jaw kind of hung open for a second. Further accentuating this were credits that actually imitating the credits of the Batman animated series, the subject of the review.

After it ended, I popped on another episode. The Halloween-themed American Werewolf review had its main frame looking like this.

David still feels washed out, but this time it's actually appropriate. Everything here is much stronger than the previous episode, visually. But suddenly the episode turned things up to 11.

This sequence is fully, skillfully animated. It's also funny, and is motivated by the material (the skit is an outlet for a commentary on the heavy number of horror reboots/remakes of late).

Everything he's doing visually is motivated by the material being reviewed.

Okay, this is the kind of thing that gets me excited about the DIY review scene; there are flaws, sure. There are limitations in the production, and the knowledge of composition. The pacing is a bit slower than perhaps it could be. But my god... This is a guy who's bringing something new to the table and pushing the boundaries of this style of videomaking and reviewing.

So, the assessment.

There is attention paid to the lighting, though some episodes are better lit than others. The green screen effect is pulled off decently. Composition isn't especially impressive. The backgrounds are appropriate, and frequently help to build a visual style distinct and appropriate to the material being reviewed. The title graphics, informational cards, and credits are all strong. The animation, when used, is strong.

21. TJ OMEGA - TJ TV

TJ Omega

EPISODE WATCHED:
Heathcliff vs. Garfield

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I have followed this series for some time. I have also been in contact with TJ.

MY THOUGHTS:
Very strong title sequence. The strength of this show is not really in its visuals, though.



22. THE BLOCKBUSTER BUSTER

The Blockbuster Buster

EPISODE WATCHED:
Red Riding Hood

MY PROCESS:
I'll be shorter here, I promise.

I'd heard of this guy a year ago, and I'd written him off after watching an older episode. There was more ambition in the shots than most, but those shots didn't feel especially skilled in their execution. On more judging-a-book-by-its-cover notes, his title cards weren't especially skilled and his website... well, it's an Angelfire website with all the trappings that go with it.

In private, I've been outspoken against this show.

Today I'm eating my words with a side of humble pie.

The composition is overall solid, and the editing is tight. Lighting is well-exposed. I applaud the success he's had.

JUDGING THE GCA: NOMINATIONS PART 3

I was talking to someone today who thought these were my nominations for Best Visual Appeal. Of course, if there's one person who'll think that then there's more. Let me clarify: these are all of the nominations in the category of Best Visual Appeal. The My Thoughts section is taken from the notes I took while evaluating them.

There are a total of 22 nominations in the Visual Appeal category. I'm posting them in digestible chunks.

With that out of the way, let's continue.

11. COLOR THE GRAYSCALE - ANIMATION DOMINATION

Color the Grayscale

EPISODE WATCHED:
Asterix and the Vikings
Cars

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I was aware of this show and follow it. Karen and myself have been in contact and have collaborated previously. That and she wrote the first guest article for this blog.

MY THOUGHTS:
Nearly everything is done from a single angle. Strong lighting with a backlight. There's attention to color scheme that really makes the frame pop. Great intro. Shots other than the main camera angle often aren't as visually strong.

12. PAN-PIZZA - REBEL TAXI

Pan-Pizza

EPISODES WATCHED:
My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic
Top 10 Disappointing Games [Part 1]
Top 10 Disappointing Games [Part 2]
Ned's Declassified Review [Reviews]

MY PROCESS FOR THIS NOMINATION:
I'd never heard of this show before the judging process. As with Jaimetud, I had some difficulty with this entry but for entirely different reasons.

There absolutely is skill present in the illustrations. Pan-Pizza himself has a great deal of character, and the main image is strong. Unfortunately, it doesn't leave much of an impression in the episode because it goes by so quickly and the videos so rarely cuts back to the character.

It actually took me a couple episodes to make the connection that tank Pan-Pizza's sitting in is actually the Rebel Taxi of the show's name.


Frankly surprised there's not more done with that concept. A taxi driver talking about the shows he's seen to his eccentric passengers would make an interesting framing device for a review show of this vein.

As with many DIY review series like this, there are several cut-away gags. Unlike those other series, I had difficulty identifying which were created for the show and which were taken from other sources. This isn't necessarily a bad thing from a viewing experience, but it does pose a problem in trying to evaluate the visual appeal of the show itself.


What is undeniably created for the show is undeniably high quality and visually compelling. Color schemes have strong cohesion and there is attention to composition.



13. MOVIE FEUDS

Movie Feuds

EPISODE WATCHED:
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I'd not heard of this series before this series.

MY THOUGHTS:
The background and title sequence are polished, and there's attention paid to the lighting (yay backlight!). The green screen effect is solid, but there's a green tinge to the characters. There is very little variety to the shots, sticking largely to the single frame. It's effective for the show's purpose, but the frame's composition doesn't really pop.

14. NOSTALGIA CHICK

Nostalgia Chick

EPISODE WATCHED:
The Christmas Shoes

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I've followed this show for some time.

MY THOUGHTS:
There's variety in the shots, and occasionally there will be a visually interesting image, but the strength of this show is not in its visuals.



15. PHIL BUNI - THE BUNNY PERSPECTIVE

Phil Buni

EPISODE WATCHED:
The End of Evangeleon
Predator 2

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I've followed this show for some time. I also have been in contact with the show's creator.

MY THOUGHTS:
There's attention paid to the color scheme and the set design. The puppet was custom-designed and built. Twice. Lighting doesn't jump out, but is intentional. Same with the framing. That's really what everything about this show feels like: intentional, approachable, with nothing so polished that it distracts.



16. THE SHADES - ANIME TAKEOVER

The Shades

EPISODE WATCHED:
Top Ten Anime Theme Songs

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I was aware of this show previously and have watched several episodes. We've been in contact in the past.

MY THOUGHTS:
This show has heavy technical limitations. John does a lot with what he has, but doesn't overcome those limitations.



Hey everyone! This entry is dedicated to Stephen from Animated Analysis for commenting on an earlier post (Because I do that. Comment, people!).

Something I feel I should mention in light of his comment; when I'm judging at a show I'm unfamiliar with, I will always watch part of a second episode to compare visual styles. If both have comparable visual styles, I'll only watch the one episode (generally the more recent of the two). If the style is substantially different, I will watch both.

For someone like Linkara, who I'm familiar with, I'll look for a more visually ambitious episode rather than his regular episodes.

JUDGING THE GCA: NOMINATION PART 2

A bit of an update about the finalist choosing process before I go on with today's post.

FOR EACH CATEGORY
PRIMARY JUDGE is responsible for choosing the first 2 FINALISTS.
After this, the SECONDARY JUDGE chooses the 3rd FINALIST.
And finally ROBERT MILLION chooses the 4th FINALIST.

It is done in this order.

Okay, moving on to more of the nominees for Best Visual Appeal.

6. PHELOUS

Phelous

EPISODE WATCHED:
The Human Centipede 2

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I was aware of this show and have followed it in the past.

MY THOUGHTS:
The color pallet here really pops and the backgrounds are visually interesting. There is attention paid to lighting, though shadows are cast on the back wall. The camera work is solid, though occasionally there are some focus issues. It is important to note this episode used a non-standard location.

7. JAIMETUD

Jaimetud

EPISODES WATCHED:
ZOMBIE LAKE
PLANET OF THE APES
FROM PAGES TO PICTURES - STAND BY ME

MY PROCESS FOR THIS NOMINATION:
I actually had a bit of difficulty with this entry. I'd never heard of him and I couldn't see anything that would really warrant attention in visual appeal in the episode I'd chosen to watch... yet he'd been nominated by three separate people. I ultimately ended up watching several of the episodes.

And finally I found this sequence.

I can't tell if this was green screen or if it's filmed on a set. That's a good thing, either way. The composition in this sequence is competent, and I've seen material like this in decent short films.

It contrasts heavily with the episode's opening scene.

Or in a more recent Halloween episode, which has fairly bland framing in front of a decent green screen effect.

Compare the above two shots with the shot below.

The above was filmed for the 'Planet of the Apes' review. It's appropriate to the material being reviewed and appears right out of a low-budget 1970s science fiction film. The lighting is a bit flat, but is bright enough not to be distracting. The composition and editing are competently handled.

For the final episode I watched, from his 'Pages To Pictures' series, I have to admit there was a quiet, competent style to it. The colors were warm and the shots felt appropriate.

8. SOUTH JERSEY SAM

South Jersey Sam

EPISODE WATCHED:
TOP 13 BEST FOXES

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I've never heard of this show previously.

A bit of an aside, but there really is no reason the average length of his episodes should be approaching an hour in length. The information is decent for each entry, but a 13-part list like this would probably have been better served being 13 separate videos.

MY THOUGHTS:
There is a charm to the Machinima style of presentation. The slide-show approach helps to minimize animation limitations of earlier episodes (well, at least of the first episode). There's a rough classically animated segment which seems to have been done specifically for the episode which is very well handled.

9. SOME JERK WITH A CAMERA

Some Jerk With A Camera

EPISODES WATCHED:
CAPTAIN EO PART ONE
CAPTAIN EO PART TWO

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I'd heard of the show before but hadn't really given it a chance.

MY THOUGHTS:
This is a series about the attractions of Disneyland and it's filmed entirely at Disneyland. Every shot is a different location. The hand-held camerawork doesn't distract and there's strong editing. There's a documentary charm to it, but this show's strength is not in it's visuals.

10. COUNT JACKULA

Count Jackula

EPISODES WATCHED:
HALLOWEEN SPECIAL #4: GARFIELD
UNREST

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
People had mentioned him to me previously.

MY THOUGHTS:
The costume and set design create an interesting horror esthetic. There is attention paid to lighting is some episodes. There's little variety in the shots, but the framing does what it's supposed to.

JUDGING THE GCA: NOMINATIONS PART 1

Starting today I'm going to do something a bit different. A number of people have asked about who was nominated. While it's not my place to release the whole list it doesn't mean there's nothing I can do. There are two categories I'm the primary judge of; Best Visual Appeal and Best Writing. It's these I will be posting on.

I'm decided on doing this for two reasons:

1. Further transparency, as I'll be talking about some of my reactions to it.
   
2. Just maybe it will introduce people to some shows they otherwise wouldn't give a chance to.
   

NOMINATION #1 - Apollo Z. Hack

Apollo Z. Hack

EPISODE WATCHED:
DAMN! - Watcher In The Woods

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I was aware of this show and have followed the show since its inception. Matt and myself have collaborated in the past and plan to do so again.

MY THOUGHTS:
There is an identifiable visual style which is consistent despite changes in locations and image filters. The post production elements are effective more often than not. The lighting is competently handled and visually interesting.

NOMINATION #2 - The Game Show Reviewer

The Game Show Reviewer

EPISODES WATCHED:
The Many Themes Of Jeopardy
The Price is Right - Part 1

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I have never watched this show until judging these awards. Before this, I hadn't heard of this show.

MY THOUGHTS:
There are technical limitations to the physical production, but the green screen effect itself is pretty seamless. The shots themselves are varied and sometimes visually interesting (if dark). Each episode seems to have a CGI environment custom built. At times the presentation rivals that of Angry Joe.

NOMINATION #3 - Animated Analysis

Animated Analysis

EPISODE WATCHED:
The Brave Little Toaster

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I was aware of this show previously and had watched an episode previously.

MY THOUGHTS:
The animation is well handled. The framing isn't particularly interesting. There doesn't seem to be attention paid to the lighting.

NOMINATION #4 - Atop The 4th Wall

Atop The 4th Wall

EPISODE WATCHED:
Pokemon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I was aware of this show and have followed it for some time. This episode was chosen because its his most recent visually ambitious undertaking.

MY THOUGHTS:
This show's effectiveness is not in its visuals. What Linkara is good at is building atmosphere though pacing and sound design. The editing is solid.

NOMINATION #5 - Angry Joe Show

Angry Joe

EPISODE WATCHED:
Saints Row: The Third Angry Review

BIAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I was aware of this show and have followed it for some time.

MY THOUGHTS:
The color scheme of the show lends a cohesive look to the show. The green screen effects are generally very effective and the lighting is well-exposed. Little variety to the shots. The CGI background is visually interesting.

JUDGING THE GCA: JUDGING VISUAL APPEAL

A question was raised about how I'm going about evaluating my categories. This point is as good as any to mention that the two primary categories assigned to me are Best Visual Appeal and Best Writing.

I'm working my way through Best Visual Appeal right now, so let's start with my process there.

Because of time, I obviously can't watch all videos a reviewer has made, so I watch their most recent video. If I'm unfamiliar with their material, I will cue up a second video and scan through it to see if the visual style is consistent. If the second video has a different style than the first, I'll watch it as well. I'm looking for lighting, shot composition, the color scheme and the general aesthetics.

Shot composition:

• Are shots constructed with care or are they haphazard?
• Do they follow the rules of compositions?
• How effective are they at conveying the intended message?
• Is there consistent quality between shots, or do separate shots contrast with the overall tone?

Lighting:

• Is there attention paid to lighting?
• Is the lighting flat and lifeless, or does is there a style achieved with the lighting beyond 'make the subject visible'?
• Are there multiple shadows projected on the wall? (bad)
• Is there a backlight?

Color Scheme:

• Is there attention paid to create a distinct color pallet?
• Does it compliment the show's concept?

General Aesthetic:

• How does everything work together?
  
• How does the editing impact the viewing experience?
• If there are effects, how effective are they? Are they distracting to the experience or do they add something?
• And yes, how do I feel when watching this? Seriously, something may break every composition rule and still pop visually.
  

Because of the visual nature of this category, I will actually take screenshots of certain shots for later reference.

I will take notes in point form for each nomination in a Word, and then I will put a 'Yes', 'No', or 'Maybe' in brackets beside the title based on whether I could see it a genuine contender for the top slot. 'Yes' and 'No' are obvious, even if reasons are on a case-by-case basis. 'Maybe' means that though I feel it's strong, this nomination has elements that bring it down. If I don't get four 'Yes' votes, I will be revisiting these nominations.

Thus far, I've only gotten one 'Yes'.

JUDGING THE GCA: ON THE JUDGES

The fourth day! Short one today.

ZOMBIFICATION ASKS: Who got the podcast section?
Um... This is going to come across as more flippant than I'd like, but Judge #4.

I'm sorry I can't be more forth-coming at this point; the person who's judging that has not made it public that they're judging these awards and it's not right for me to take away their right to privacy.

Though I won't reveal the identities of any judge who's not already explicitly announced their involvement, there are more things I can say about them without violating any rights, implied or otherwise.

Judges were chosen on a few set criteria.

1. Judges cannot have been nominated in any category.
2. Judges must be familiar with the online DYI style of reviewing.
3. As much as possible they must not be seen as being biased in their selections.
   

Three of the judges have made videos critiquing review series and/or the state of online criticism in this community. At least three have written extensively and intelligently about the subject, whether it be on blogs or forums. Oh, and I'm not the only judge with a background in film theory.

But who can I actually confirm? Well, as stated in a previous post, Robert is the only judge to be associated directly with CriticTV. Aside from myself, only MartialHorror of Critiquing The Critics has made his involvement public.

I believe many of the judges will be made public when the winners are announced.

JUDGING THE GCA: HOW IT WORKS

Well the first two days of judging is over. Time for another blog entry!

I might as well talk a little bit about the slightly daunting task the judging task is and how we're doing it. There are two basic steps judges have to take. The first step, of course, is to narrow each category down to 48 finalists (4 per category) and 12 winners.

This poses some complications of its own.

There are 315 individual nominations between 12 categories. Assuming an average of 20 minutes a video/nomination, that's 105 hours of raw episodic footage. More than 4 and a half straight days, or 5 hours a day for 21 days. That's not including any additional time spent on the evaluation process. Everyone involved is a volunteer, so this isn't exactly realistic.

So let's talk about the process.

As mentioned in the previous post, there are 7 judges, including Robert. I want you to break that down mentally as 6 and 1, as Robert's a special case.

Each of the 6 judges will be charged with 2 Primary categories each. In these, the judge will watch and evaluate every entry and narrow down to 4 finalists. In addition, each judge will be charged with 2 Secondary categories (which are another judge's Primaries). Again, 4 finalists each.

At this point, every category will have been reviewed separately by 2 separate judges. There will be somewhere between 4 and 8 finalists. At this point, these 2 judges will debate and narrow these down to 4. If an agreement can't be reached, (i.e. each judge had 4 entirely different finalists) then the finalists could be extended to a maximum of 6.

Now, Robert has decided to watch all 315 nominations himself and weigh in on the finalists as well. In this way, the effects of any one person's bias will be minimized.

The second step is voting. Most votes wins. Second most becomes the runner-up. Simple as that... Okay, so not quite so simple as each judge now has to watch any entries they hadn't already in order to make the vote, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Do you have any questions about this process? I'm planning quite a few more of these, so hit me up! I'll do my best to answer any questions or criticisms you might have.

JUDGING THE GOLDEN CRITIC AWARDS: THE TRANSPARENCY PROJECT

For those not aware, the Golden Critic Awards are an independent award show intended to celebrate and recognize the work of the homebrew reviewer community.



As you can imagine, it has a bit of a PR issue right now.

The perception many have is that the show is little more than something intended to give more praise to the people of TGWTG. Or to give awards to people who really don't deserve any recognition for their work, people who's work is so sloppy as to be practically unwatchable in any other circumstance.

When Robert Million approached me to be a judge in mid-November, those were chief among the concerns I raised. You can be assured that if I didn't like the answers I got, I would not be willing to have my name associated with this thing. I did, and I am.

Though the tone coming across in the above video is flippant, the idea behind it is not.

Not including Robert himself, there are six judges who've been selected from many different backgrounds. In order to appear as unbiased as possible he is the only judge associated with CriticTV, through which the GCAs are organized. The rest where chosen from a myriad of different backgrounds and social circles, some of whom I personally recommended. Out of respect for those judges who want to remain anonymous, I won't divulge names; however I can say that I'm not the only person with formal training in film theory.

I've made the decision to be transparent about my judging process. In this way I hope to show these awards in a better light; to bring to light the process and perhaps counteract the hesitations many people have of these awards.