This thing broke the 180 degree rule 14 seconds in. That's literally the first thing you learn in film school or just by learning about how to shoot something. Literally, the first thing. It's the type of thing you kind of know to do anyway because it looks bad when you break it. Notice how weird it looks to have the camera looking straight at Jim as he walks up for a establishing shot, then over the girls right shoulder at him...so all shots should be shot as if the camera is on the near side of the table. Then for some reason we see her on her phone over the seated guy's right shoulder. The guy makes this mistake 4 or 5 more times. All shots should be straight on Jim or over the girl's Right shoulder or the guy's left shoulder. And why is the camera wobbling and not straight? You're not Paul Greengrass, even if you must forego a tripod/monopod, keep the fucking camera level at least.
Not to mention the bad audio editing, different background humming as each shot changes. Just tape 30 seconds of silence in the room and layer it behind the entire piece so the background noise is consistent. This is basic stuff.
If you're going to make a shit video, it might as well be technically sound.
The shot of Bonnie at 28 seconds is bad, we see her walking out into the hallway from the near side, then when she leans over to the girl at the desk, the camera is where Joe is. Other than that it's not that bad technically, Joe's acting is atrocious though.
Although the bulk of the piece is in front of Bonnie's office door, it's weird camera positioning with the wide shot. The angle is weird so when you cut the close ups, it feels disorienting. He should've moved the camera over a little to the left so the doorway is more straight on, because the closeups are filmed that way. Sound isn't bad for a low budget thing.
It's far better than Florentine's technically at least.
Yeah, I basically just articulated why it looks shitty. See the rules of making something look good were just determined over time by people figuring out what looks best.
Think about the actual content of this video.... do you think he'd spend time making it technically sound if he spent zero time making it comically funny?
Well that's my point. Even if the writing and acting is shit, whoever made the video can at least make the video technically sound. It's harder to be funny than it is to position your camera in the correct spot and follow basic rules.
It's weird how these seemingly arbitrary rules dictate what looks bad to us. It's as if cinematography is a language we all understand, but few of us can speak it with proper grammar, maaaahn.
edit: can you recommend a book that would explain cool shit like this to a layman? I want to know when the cinematographic jew is sneaking messages into my mind.
Where you shoot your establishing shot from, in this clip it's the near side of the table, the shot straight on Jim with people seated on either side of him. Now you've established the line your camera can't cross over. It's called the 180 degree rule because you can put your camera anywhere on this side of the line, thus 180 degrees. So any shot has to be straight on, over her right shoulder or over his right shoulder. Once you go over her left and his right, then you've crossed the line and gone to the other side (181-360 degrees) and it disorients the viewer. That's why people watching it say "it looks like shit" even without knowing the rule. I just know because I went to film school and it's a very basic principle. If you went and made a clip like this you probably wouldn't break the rule just because you've seen so many shows and movies so you'd know what looks right and what doesn't.
Sometimes the rule is violated out of need and sometimes out of choice of the director to intentionally disorient the viewer, you're supposed to have purpose and a reason behind every camera movement.
You can change your 180 degree line mid scene with a camera move. If the camera man tracked around the table as they were talking and ended up behind Jim, NOW he could shoot over the man's right shoulder and woman's left shoulder because he made a camera move to change the 180 degree line and the viewer would follow it in scene and it wouldn't disorient them. You see this a lot in films, Paul Thomas Anderson does it a lot, Scorcese, Tarantino does it a lot too. Actually Tarantino are two directors who frequently break the rule with intention. Scorcese did it in Wolf of Wall Street often during the drug scenes intentionally trying to disorient the viewer and Tarantino a lot in Pulp Fiction.
Basically it's just a basic rule you're supposed to follow 99% of the time.
And I'm not Spielberg nor think I am, just a dummy who got my degree in film instead of something more practical.
That said - Compared to Opie's assembly line manufactured videos, you can at least tell that Florentine puts a modicum of effort into trying to make something.
When it comes to creating things, it takes a lot more courage to do what Florentine is doing than it does to just steal ideas from dying fads for 45 minutes of everyday of your life.
I don't think Florentine is all that funny, but the fact that he's willing to put effort into making comedy means that he might get better over time, as opposed to his heavy chested counterpart.
Dude this is so fucking bad. And Anthony actually tweeted it saying it was funny. I don't believe Ant did that on his own accord, Florentine definitely asked him to tweet the video. So many douche chills...
26 comments
10 opieanthonyjim 2015-02-09
This thing broke the 180 degree rule 14 seconds in. That's literally the first thing you learn in film school or just by learning about how to shoot something. Literally, the first thing. It's the type of thing you kind of know to do anyway because it looks bad when you break it. Notice how weird it looks to have the camera looking straight at Jim as he walks up for a establishing shot, then over the girls right shoulder at him...so all shots should be shot as if the camera is on the near side of the table. Then for some reason we see her on her phone over the seated guy's right shoulder. The guy makes this mistake 4 or 5 more times. All shots should be straight on Jim or over the girl's Right shoulder or the guy's left shoulder. And why is the camera wobbling and not straight? You're not Paul Greengrass, even if you must forego a tripod/monopod, keep the fucking camera level at least.
Not to mention the bad audio editing, different background humming as each shot changes. Just tape 30 seconds of silence in the room and layer it behind the entire piece so the background noise is consistent. This is basic stuff.
If you're going to make a shit video, it might as well be technically sound.
5 CoSOggy 2015-02-09
You will love Derosa's piece of shit. http://youtu.be/aGpctGRvDRs :)
3 opieanthonyjim 2015-02-09
The shot of Bonnie at 28 seconds is bad, we see her walking out into the hallway from the near side, then when she leans over to the girl at the desk, the camera is where Joe is. Other than that it's not that bad technically, Joe's acting is atrocious though.
Although the bulk of the piece is in front of Bonnie's office door, it's weird camera positioning with the wide shot. The angle is weird so when you cut the close ups, it feels disorienting. He should've moved the camera over a little to the left so the doorway is more straight on, because the closeups are filmed that way. Sound isn't bad for a low budget thing.
It's far better than Florentine's technically at least.
3 brettsd 2015-02-09
Thanks for the insight. I know nothing about film I just knew it kind of looked shitty like some old straight to vhs production.
2 opieanthonyjim 2015-02-09
Yeah, I basically just articulated why it looks shitty. See the rules of making something look good were just determined over time by people figuring out what looks best.
1 [deleted] 2015-02-09
[deleted]
1 rottenseed 2015-02-09
Think about the actual content of this video.... do you think he'd spend time making it technically sound if he spent zero time making it comically funny?
1 opieanthonyjim 2015-02-09
Well that's my point. Even if the writing and acting is shit, whoever made the video can at least make the video technically sound. It's harder to be funny than it is to position your camera in the correct spot and follow basic rules.
0 [deleted] 2015-02-09
It's weird how these seemingly arbitrary rules dictate what looks bad to us. It's as if cinematography is a language we all understand, but few of us can speak it with proper grammar, maaaahn.
edit: can you recommend a book that would explain cool shit like this to a layman? I want to know when the cinematographic jew is sneaking messages into my mind.
2 opieanthonyjim 2015-02-09
Making Movies by Sidney Lumet (Dog Day Afternoon, Network, 12 Angry Men) was a great one.
On Directing Film by David Mamet
Rebel without a Crew is a good one written by Robert Rodriguez.
even Filmmaking for Dummies is good just for the basics.
For screenwriting, the Syd Fields books are the best.
1 [deleted] 2015-02-09
thank you, already downloading
-2 turdthief 2015-02-09
well....what is the 180 degree rule, Spielberg?
3 opieanthonyjim 2015-02-09
I said it in my post.
Where you shoot your establishing shot from, in this clip it's the near side of the table, the shot straight on Jim with people seated on either side of him. Now you've established the line your camera can't cross over. It's called the 180 degree rule because you can put your camera anywhere on this side of the line, thus 180 degrees. So any shot has to be straight on, over her right shoulder or over his right shoulder. Once you go over her left and his right, then you've crossed the line and gone to the other side (181-360 degrees) and it disorients the viewer. That's why people watching it say "it looks like shit" even without knowing the rule. I just know because I went to film school and it's a very basic principle. If you went and made a clip like this you probably wouldn't break the rule just because you've seen so many shows and movies so you'd know what looks right and what doesn't.
Sometimes the rule is violated out of need and sometimes out of choice of the director to intentionally disorient the viewer, you're supposed to have purpose and a reason behind every camera movement.
You can change your 180 degree line mid scene with a camera move. If the camera man tracked around the table as they were talking and ended up behind Jim, NOW he could shoot over the man's right shoulder and woman's left shoulder because he made a camera move to change the 180 degree line and the viewer would follow it in scene and it wouldn't disorient them. You see this a lot in films, Paul Thomas Anderson does it a lot, Scorcese, Tarantino does it a lot too. Actually Tarantino are two directors who frequently break the rule with intention. Scorcese did it in Wolf of Wall Street often during the drug scenes intentionally trying to disorient the viewer and Tarantino a lot in Pulp Fiction.
Basically it's just a basic rule you're supposed to follow 99% of the time.
And I'm not Spielberg nor think I am, just a dummy who got my degree in film instead of something more practical.
-2 turdthief 2015-02-09
Are you Army Strong?TM Learn more at goarmy.com
1 opieanthonyjim 2015-02-09
You're welcome.
6 snoopkhat 2015-02-09
jim should have practiced that before filming it.
5 Masogava 2015-02-09
I like Florentine, but holy fuck this is terrible....
3 CoSOggy 2015-02-09
Even from a technical standpoint it's filmed and edited quite poorly. Poor Florentine :(
3 DuckSpeaker_ 2015-02-09
That was pretty bad.
That said - Compared to Opie's assembly line manufactured videos, you can at least tell that Florentine puts a modicum of effort into trying to make something.
When it comes to creating things, it takes a lot more courage to do what Florentine is doing than it does to just steal ideas from dying fads for 45 minutes of everyday of your life.
I don't think Florentine is all that funny, but the fact that he's willing to put effort into making comedy means that he might get better over time, as opposed to his heavy chested counterpart.
3 gucciswahgg 2015-02-09
Writing was not bad, on par with the standard shit you see on tv.
but my god the production.... it makes me feel really...sad
2 CookieHaid 2015-02-09
That was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCES_rOuKT4&t=44 . I actually thought the "...rather pick out coffins..." like was good. The rest? Not so much.
2 Opprobriousness 2015-02-09
I have to admit, that was pretty funny. Jim's incredulous face for the first minute was chuckleworthy and the coffin line was solid.
I liked this. I doubt he'll be able to keep it up for long, though, but I hope I am proven wrong.
2 Patagonian_Rat 2015-02-09
I like how he shrugs after everything he says, douche chills.
1 Anton_Lemieux 2015-02-09
I like how naturally he plows through his stand-up material.
I like Jim, but this was not so good.
1 opieanthonyjim 2015-02-09
Yeah its so unnatural. It's him as a waiter doing a stand up bit to a two person audience.
1 Weed_n_Wisdom 2015-02-09
Dude this is so fucking bad. And Anthony actually tweeted it saying it was funny. I don't believe Ant did that on his own accord, Florentine definitely asked him to tweet the video. So many douche chills...
0 Lynsi_Hughes 2015-02-09
Shit is lame but who the fuck are these other retards... Cool jacket buddy