Great Film Mag!!
BetterDuck
Kenneth Bearden wrote:
>
> Martin Kunert wrote:
>
> > Looks like another genius who thought:
> >
> > "Hey, I got a brilliant idea! What don't we make our spam ad read like
> > somebody's personnel testimonial."
>
> No. It really is a personal testimonial. I don't have anything to do with
> the mag at all. I just found it last weekend, loved it, and posted it here.
Not to mention posting it a the R.A.M.P., alt.cinematography, and
deja-news
only know what other newgroups you posted it. I'm not worried about spam
as
some of the members in this group but let me say this:
That magazine sucks!!! It has about 15 pages of worthless "hey look at
me
world, I'm a grip" articles. Grip this you bunch of tool totin' Wrangler
wearin'
producer bashing, F-150 driving, metal-shop honor roll claiming, C-stand
movers.
What's next? How to hold a roll of grip tape without getting your
stroking hand all sticky?
I'm just joking, I respect all crew members that work in the industry
and appreciate their value and contributions in the field of
production, but the magazine still sucks.
Better Duck
BetterDuck
Kenneth Bearden wrote:
>
> BetterDuck wrote:
>
> > That magazine sucks!!!
>
> Totally disagree. This mag contains very useful info for filmmakers, like myself,
> who want to learn as much as possible about production.
>
> This first issue I found (April issue) contained a great article on using Super 16
> and suggested ways to hide the grain associated with 16. It also discussed
> Kodak's new, finer grain, 16mm stocks in 800' rolls.
Cool dude, like uh.. I've never seen an 800' mag, and like, uh, the
rental houses
aint gonna rent ya the new Aaton like, unless they know your a real D.P.
And
like, if you were a DP, you would like, you know, have a copy or two of
American
Cinematographer around. QUIT lying you yellow livered Sharon Baker, we
all know
you have something to do with the magazine.
> There was a fantastic article on dollies, and it discussed different brands and
> the pros/cons associated with them. The article also suggested a way to make a
> dolly with plywood and skateboard wheels for the No and Low Budget filmmaker.
> And, it was discussed how to fight "floor creak" problems when using a dolly.
Splendid,
> Another article discussed pros/cons of various, specific, models of shotgun mikes.
Bravo.
> Another article discussed the use of xenon lights.
Yabba-dabba-do
> A section detailed interesting books for the industry.
Great day in the morning, you don't say...
> An articled discussed LCD monitors and their use.
I predict at the least a Nobel prize for the folks at FILMCREW on
this issue alone.
> And finally, the New Toys section detailed various specific equipment available to
> the independent filmmaker.
>
> I don't know about you, but all of that is very valuable to a serious independent
> filmmaker. Its much more valuable than reading yet another story about how Joe
> Blow made another indie on his credit cards or an interview with the guy that just
> sold the new, hottest script for a million bucks.
We are all imbittered, scorned writers with rashes in this group, Your
post
was fine in r.a.m.p. but it doesn't belong here, the last thing any of
us
cornered dogs of ink want is to have a god damn skate-board dolly used
on
one of our scripts, For Christ sake, Skip Press is in this god damn
newsgroup,
open your eyes Smedley boy.
> You can get that kind of info in several magazines. FilmCrew focuses on nuts and
> bolts, production specific, information.
Don't forget the "how many grips does it take to _blank_" section or
how to
thread a leatherette belt through a pair of Toughskins column either.
> It's exactly what I'm looking for.
I'm Glad you found it, Ken. Now take off the mask Mr. Cananga.
> > I'm just joking, I respect all crew members that work in the industry
> > and appreciate their value and contributions in the field of
> > production, but the magazine still sucks.
>
> Nice command of the English language. Maybe somebody ought to report on the
> merits of Better Duck's Production classes and Workbooks. I'm sure not all of
> your students thought they were wonderful.
I have no students anymore I stabbed em all with my Biro Medium for
reading
Film Crew during my lectures.
> That said, if you have another magazine you like--something that provides specific
> nuts and bolts information useable by a determined independent filmmaker, then
> please list it. I'll probably subscribe to that one too.
HUSTLER (Beaver Hunt) Great examples of Cinema Verite lighting.
Popular Autopsy - For Color Correction and Contrast reference.
Soldier of Fortune - Panavisions without insurance.
PITT - Storyboarding, and general inspiration on how to raise $150
million
without anything but internet access.
Ballistic Enquirer - Screenplay software that automatically SPAMS your
screenplay to over 4 Million Producers and Agents in one day.
I confess Ken, I subscribe to FilmCrew and it is a good magazine, I was
just
fucking with you, cause it was obvious you have something to do with the
magazine and we at MWS all think we can solve the Scooby Doo Mysteries
without Freddy ripping off the culprits mask, its who we are, it what we
do. In Columbo we trust.
If you really don't work for Film Crew you should, they havent had this
much publicity in the history of their rag.
Get Paid,
Better Duck
BetterDuck
Kenneth Bearden wrote:
>
>
>
> I understand why you call yourself "Better Duck"--because you are so belligerent, that
> you have to duck, real quick like, to keep from getting your face bashed in when you > are around people in person.
> Or, are you just the annoying snot that you are behind your keyboard?
Beard. (v) To oppose to the face; to set at defiance.
Better Duck
BetterDuck
The Searcher wrote:
>
> Like a lot of people on the internet, Better Duck is just another
> snarkish know-it-all who attacks other's opinions with his own to make
> himself feel better thinking he's better than everyone else. Hence, the
> handle "Better Duck", I suppose, rather than his real name.
Jealousy is disease, you can get help ... 1-800-Get-OffmyDick
Better Duck
BetterDuck
Jeff S Miholer wrote:
>
> The Searcher (ewo...@doitnow.com) wrote:
> : Better Duck is <snip> thinking he's better than everyone else.
>
> He's better than me.
Only in pronoun usage - its "He's better than I", Jeff. Otherwise you
are
much better than I.
Better Duck
BetterDuck
Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> The Searcher wrote:
>
> > Better Duck is better than everyone else. Hence, the
> > handle "Better Duck"
This is really too much, thank you. All of you.
> Ever notice the habit some lurkers or occasional posters have of darting
> out to nip at someone's heels then rush back to the shadows, like
> cockroaches when you turn on the light?
Heal-Nipping is covered in the Better Duck FAQ
http://members.aol.com/bettrduck/index.html
Better Duck
Kenneth Bearden
In my quest for more and more nuts and bolts information on filmmaking,
I've found another magazine that I think in incredible, and I want to
share it with you.
It's called Filmcrew, and it's everything that I've been searching for
in a mag. There's real how-to information to be gotten here. It's a
reader written publication--written by film crew professionals.
The April issue contains an article on:
Medical insurance for the self employed
Interview with script supervisor Adrienne Hamalian (Mr. Holland's Opus,
The Beautician & the Beast, 9 1/2 Weeks, Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's
Dead, and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure)
Interview with still photographer Nina Kreiger (Mantis, Family Matters,
various low-budget films)
Using Super 16mm film
'97 Scientific and Technical Academy Award Winners
The Art of the Dolly Grip
Shotgun Microphones
Xenons Lights
Books on the Biz
LCD Monitors
New Toys in the Industry
A Primer on Lifting
How to Become A commercial Producer
As you can see, this is not your normal interview laden magazine. There
are several articles here that you can learn the biz from by osmosis.
As an independent filmmaker, I'm completely hooked.
This magazine is exactly what I've been looking for. It's what I wanted
from The Independent, MovieMaker, and Filmmaker but didn't get.
Kenneth.
PS You can reach Filmcrew at
film...@aol.com
Martin Kunert
Looks like another genius who thought:
"Hey, I got a brilliant idea! What don't we make our spam ad read like
somebody's personnel testimonial."
Kenneth Bearden wrote in message <35704031...@brokersys.com>...
Jeff S Miholer
Martin Kunert (nospam...@MCI2000.COM) wrote:
: "Hey, I got a brilliant idea! What don't we make our spam ad read like
: somebody's personnel testimonial."
I'm building a filter. How's this for the hit-list? Any three and it
goes.
: >quest
: >incredible
: >share it with you
: >everything that I've been searching for
: >reader written
: >As you can see
: >this is not your normal
: >laden
: >completely hooked
: >exactly what I've been looking for.
: >It's what I wanted from _____ but didn't get.
: >You can reach
Kenneth Bearden
Martin Kunert wrote:
> Looks like another genius who thought:
>
> "Hey, I got a brilliant idea! What don't we make our spam ad read like
> somebody's personnel testimonial."
No. It really is a personal testimonial. I don't have anything to do with
the mag at all. I just found it last weekend, loved it, and posted it here.
Kenneth.
Martin Kunert
Kenneth Bearden wrote in message <35708E9F...@brokersys.com>...
Hmm.. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe your posting was honest.
But you posted the same message to 6 different newsgroups....
And on May 25, you posted a similar message about Texas Filmmakers magazine
to about 6 newsgroups
And, last but not least, you are being tracked by spamhounds at
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
:Subject: Usenet Posting Summary (Mon, 04 May 1998 20:02:38 CDT)
:Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
[snip]
:386 34.000 34 48630 Kenneth Bearden <dre...@brokersys.com>
Kenneth Bearden
Martin Kunert wrote:
> Hmm.. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe your posting was honest.
Well, you didn't hurt my feelings.
> But you posted the same message to 6 different newsgroups....
> And on May 25, you posted a similar message about Texas Filmmakers magazine
> to about 6 newsgroups
Yes, I did. And before that, I posted a question asking for places to find good
production information. I happen to find two good sources of info, and I was
shareing that info with other filmmakers who read these groups--something that I
wish somebody had done for me because I would have known about them sooner.
I'm all for the wide-spread use of good production information.
> And, last but not least, you are being tracked by spamhounds at
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Hmm. I don't know anything about that, but I can assure you that these are good
posts--not spam.
Kenneth.
Kenneth Bearden
BetterDuck wrote:
> Not to mention posting it a the R.A.M.P., alt.cinematography, and
> deja-news
> only know what other newgroups you posted it. I'm not worried about spam
> as
> some of the members in this group but let me say this:
>
> That magazine sucks!!!
Totally disagree. This mag contains very useful info for filmmakers, like myself,
who want to learn as much as possible about production.
This first issue I found (April issue) contained a great article on using Super 16
and suggested ways to hide the grain associated with 16. It also discussed
Kodak's new, finer grain, 16mm stocks in 800' rolls.
There was a fantastic article on dollies, and it discussed different brands and
the pros/cons associated with them. The article also suggested a way to make a
dolly with plywood and skateboard wheels for the No and Low Budget filmmaker.
And, it was discussed how to fight "floor creak" problems when using a dolly.
Another article discussed pros/cons of various, specific, models of shotgun mikes.
Another article discussed the use of xenon lights.
A section detailed interesting books for the industry.
An articled discussed LCD monitors and their use.
And finally, the New Toys section detailed various specific equipment available to
the independent filmmaker.
I don't know about you, but all of that is very valuable to a serious independent
filmmaker. Its much more valuable than reading yet another story about how Joe
Blow made another indie on his credit cards or an interview with the guy that just
sold the new, hottest script for a million bucks.
You can get that kind of info in several magazines. FilmCrew focuses on nuts and
bolts, production specific, information.
It's exactly what I'm looking for.
> I'm just joking, I respect all crew members that work in the industry
> and appreciate their value and contributions in the field of
> production, but the magazine still sucks.
Nice command of the English language. Maybe somebody ought to report on the
merits of Better Duck's Production classes and Workbooks. I'm sure not all of
your students thought they were wonderful.
That said, if you have another magazine you like--something that provides specific
nuts and bolts information useable by a determined independent filmmaker, then
please list it. I'll probably subscribe to that one too.
Kenneth.
The Searcher
Jeff S Miholer
Jacques E. Bouchard
The Searcher wrote:
Ever notice the habit some lurkers or occasional posters have of darting
out to nip at someone's heels then rush back to the shadows, like
cockroaches when you turn on the light?
jaybee
lu...@no.spam
Kenneth Bearden <dre...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>That's kind of what I was thinking. I liked the mag, spread the word (with your help,
>thanks! People like some good dirt to spice up their posts), and hope that other
>filmmakers, like myself, find some value in FilmCrew.
>
>But, seriously, honestly...I don't work for, nor do I have any connection with FilmCrew.
>
>I simply liked the damn mag and was spreading the word.
>
>Kenneth Bearden
>Walker Jane Productions
>
Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.
BetterDuck
Kenneth Bearden wrote:
>
> What a case you make! I bet you stayed up all night analyzing what I said so
> that you can make yourself look good in this post. Did you and Better Duck go
> to the same school?
I sent away for my Diploma from Film Crew Magazine.
> I can tell that you're not a filmmaker--because it's not important to you to
> learn how to keep floors creaking when rolling a dolly over them, or which boom
> mike has the best range.
Um, no. If you were a filmmaker you would have learned like I did. From
making films not from reading 15 page magazines.
> This was a simple post from a filmmaker trying to spread some good news about a
> helpful magazine he had found. That's it!
But that wasn't it, I disagreed with you, and you couldn't handle it,
and even
when I told you that I get the magazine you continued to explain why it
is so good.
> I repeat: I'M NOT WITH THE DAMN MAGAZINE.
>
> Now, I guess you'll have to believe that or not. I don't care.
Yes you do care, c'mon admit it.
> I'm reading this book right now. It's called High Fidelity by Nick Hornby.
> It's a good book, and part of it reminds me of a couple people on this
> newsgroup.
>
> Hornby writes:
>
> We couldn't fill a room.
Ummmmm....people that subscribe to Film Crew?
> I don't mean that we didn't have enough stuff:
Apple boxes, front boxes, black gaffer tape, white gaffer tape. What
else
do you need? Oh, yeah...tha old measuring tape.
> I was conscious of how the only space we occupied was that
> taken up by our bodies.
Don't forget the bandwidth you have used promoting Film Crew.
> [This is the part that remindes me of Better Duck and yourself. Continue
> quote.]
>
> Sometimes we tried, when we were out with people even quieter than we; we never
> talked about why we suddenly became shriller and louder, but I'm sure we both
> knew that it happened. We did it to compensate for the fact thit life sas going
> on elsewhere, that somewhere Michael and Charlie were together, having a better
> time than we with people more glamorous than us, and making noise was a sort of
> defiant gesture, a futile but necessary last stand. (You can see this
> everywhere you go: young, middle-class people whose lives are beginning to
> disappoint them making too much noise in restaurants and clubs and wine bars.
> "Look at me! I'm not as boring as you think I am! I know how to have fun!"
> Tragic.
>
> End quote.
>
> See anything that reminds you of yourself in that? I sure do. It's the louder
> part--you, screaming at the top of your lungs, "Look at me! Look at me! I'm
> better than anybody else on this newsgroup!"
>
> And, that goes double for Better Duck.
Better tripple it.
The joke is on you kid, everyone else in this group could see how much
"FUN" I was having with you at your expense. The deafing sound you hear
is "them" laughing at you, now get on your Huffy and pedal up to Barnes
and Noble and buy another magazine.
Better Duck
Jeff S Miholer
BetterDuck (CMay...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Only in pronoun usage - its "He's better than I", Jeff.
See, that proves it.
Rich Wilson
The Searcher wrote:
>
> Like a lot of people on the internet, Better Duck is just another
> snarkish know-it-all who attacks other's opinions with his own to make
> himself feel better thinking he's better than everyone else. Hence, the
> handle "Better Duck", I suppose, rather than his real name.
Um -- he's posted his real name to the group frequently, and on the web.
Just because YOU didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Anyway, I've been reading his posts for at least a year now, and
yes, he has a VERY wry sense of humor. Not everybody picks up on it. But
for the life of me I can't remember him ever sinking to snarkism. I don't
think he has a snarkish bone in his body. He may smirk, but never snarks.
--
Rich Wilson
http://www.communicator.com
LWG
Kenneth Bearden wrote in message <3570E7B0...@brokersys.com>...
Don't know whether you're spamming or not but you use key phrases common to
others who spam the NG.
Lawrence.
Kenneth Bearden
LWG wrote:
Hmm. Maybe it's my Marketing background coming out.
What key phrases are you referring (although I bet I can figure it out--even my
title looks that way).
Kenneth.
Tuvyah
"Kenneth Bearden" and "The Searcher" wrote:
<<a lot of stuff>>
Isn't it amazing how some people never post at all...until the time comes to
hype a product (in an inappropriate venue), or snipe at a regular?
--Smilin' Ted
"This is my happening, and it freaks me out!" -- Z-Man Barzell
The Searcher
That was kinda my point.
LWG
Kenneth Bearden wrote in message <3572F750...@brokersys.com>...
"In my quest for more and more ....,
I've found another ... that I think in incredible, and I want to
share it with you."
The opening of a testimonial for anything from haemorrhoid creams to nose
hair clippers.
"It's called ..., and it's everything that I've been searching for
in a ... ."
Product placing.
"There's real how-to information to be gotten here."
Informal, folksy, jargon free implications. Information is offered without
too much presumed sophistication and knowledge on the consumer's part.
"It's a
reader written publication--"
Pure advertising jargon.
"written by film crew professionals."
This is information designed to impress the wannabe. It's targeting the
audience rather than declaring that you, as an individual, as a fellow
traveller, think it's cool. It says, you, as a third party copy writer have
analysed the product and highlighted its key selling points and presented
them to the potential customer.
"The April issue contains an article on:
Medical insurance for the self employed"
A comprehensive list of contents is more than people need to know. It takes
time to compile and is meant to add substance to the hot air of exclamations
and testimonials. Interestingly, the choice of Medical Insurance as a
subject matter within the magazine hints that Film Crew Professionals had
very little to do with putting together the magazine, though they may have
been solicited for articles. Medical Insurance is the concern of the middle
aged, which hints the magazine is less than funky, and a typical piece
derived from subbing information passed on by Insurance companies who will
be advertising on pages nearby.
'As you can see, this is not your normal interview laden magazine."
Extra Special Selling Point.
"There
are several articles here that you can learn the biz from by osmosis."
No-one learns anything by osmosis, least of all from a magazine, but a
magazine that declares itself a hard read and demands solid study and
practical experience before you could possibly grasp all the implications,
is not going to sell. And so, "You", meaning Joe Schmo, "Can learn the
biz"... implying an informal insider relationship with The Biz can be had
simply by reading the magazine. "By osmosis" implying no effort at all is
required. you need merely buy the magazine and stuff it in your back pocket.
"As an independent filmmaker, I'm completely hooked."
This is such a cliché of marketing that it could actually mean the exact
opposite, especially if used by people in this forum, who apart from
slanging matches, occasional bouts of hysteria, and bad days, use words in a
sophisticated ironical manner... Indeed, one can imagine none other than
Seinfeld using this very line and making everyone laugh.
"This magazine is exactly what I've been looking for."
No doubt fuzzy picture of a slightly balding man with bad tie sense will
appear above this statement.
"It's what I wanted
from The Independent, MovieMaker, and Filmmaker but didn't get."
Product differentiation in an already saturated market.
The product here appears designed for middle aged gadget freak wannabes who
may or may not run video companies specialising in recording bamitzvahs and
weddings, but dream of moving to LA one day once they get their medical
insurance sorted out. In fact, it sounds amazingly naff!
Definitely looks like a marketing job to me. Don't know whether it is or
isn't but I can understand people being suspicious.
Lawrence.
Kenneth Bearden
LWG wrote:
> The product here appears designed for middle aged gadget freak wannabes who
> may or may not run video companies specialising in recording bamitzvahs and
> weddings, but dream of moving to LA one day once they get their medical
> insurance sorted out. In fact, it sounds amazingly naff!
>
> Definitely looks like a marketing job to me. Don't know whether it is or
> isn't but I can understand people being suspicious.
>
> Lawrence.
What a case you make! I bet you stayed up all night analyzing what I said so
that you can make yourself look good in this post. Did you and Better Duck go
to the same school?
I can tell that you're not a filmmaker--because it's not important to you to
learn how to keep floors creaking when rolling a dolly over them, or which boom
mike has the best range.
That's the type of info that is valuable to me in FilmCrew. And, boring as it
sounds, the Medical Insurance article was a good read--it's important to people
who make a living making films, not working another job where they get insurance
and trying to make films on the weekends.
So, my suggestion to you is: don't subscribe to the thing because you won't get
anything out of it. Man, I have never met a more antagonistic group of people
than the ones I have seen here on this list. You writers (if you really are a
writer) need to get out in the sun more often!
This was a simple post from a filmmaker trying to spread some good news about a
helpful magazine he had found. That's it!
I repeat: I'M NOT WITH THE DAMN MAGAZINE.
Now, I guess you'll have to believe that or not. I don't care. But, I'll tell
you this...if I was with the magazine, all of you have sure made my job that
much easier. I never would have gotten a thread this long without the couple of
buttheads that are dead set on making themselves feel like they are better than
everyone else.
I'm reading this book right now. It's called High Fidelity by Nick Hornby.
It's a good book, and part of it reminds me of a couple people on this
newsgroup.
(Oh, heck, now they think I'm a marketing rep for this book's publisher. Oh,
well, whattya do?)
Hornby writes:
We couldn't fill a room. I don't mean that we didn't have enough stuff: she
had loads of books (she was an English teacher), and I had thousands of records,
and the flat is pretty poky anyway--I've lived there for over ten years, and
most days I feel like a cartoon dog in a kennel. I mean that neither of us
seemed loud enough, or powerful enough, so that when we were together, I was
conscious of how the only space we occupied was that taken up by our bodies. We
couldn't project the way some couples can.
[This is the part that remindes me of Better Duck and yourself. Continue
quote.]
Sometimes we tried, when we were out with people even quieter than we; we never
talked about why we suddenly became shriller and louder, but I'm sure we both
knew that it happened. We did it to compensate for the fact that life was going
on elsewhere, that somewhere Michael and Charlie were together, having a better
time than we with people more glamorous than us, and making noise was a sort of
defiant gesture, a futile but necessary last stand. (You can see this
everywhere you go: young, middle-class people whose lives are beginning to
disappoint them making too much noise in restaurants and clubs and wine bars.
"Look at me! I'm not as boring as you think I am! I know how to have fun!"
Tragic.
End quote.
See anything that reminds you of yourself in that? I sure do. It's the louder
part--you, screaming at the top of your lungs, "Look at me! Look at me! I'm
better than anybody else on this newsgroup!"
And, that goes double for Better Duck.
Kenneth.
Rich Wilson
Kenneth Bearden wrote:
>
> LWG wrote:
>
> > The product here appears designed for middle aged gadget freak wannabes who
> > may or may not run video companies specialising in recording bamitzvahs and
> > weddings, but dream of moving to LA one day once they get their medical
> > insurance sorted out. In fact, it sounds amazingly naff!
> >
> > Definitely looks like a marketing job to me. Don't know whether it is or
> > isn't but I can understand people being suspicious.
> >
> > Lawrence.
>
> What a case you make! I bet you stayed up all night analyzing what I said so
> that you can make yourself look good in this post. Did you and Better Duck go
> to the same school?
Duck got his education down on the corner, chillin' with his homeys.
> I can tell that you're not a filmmaker--because it's not important to you to
> learn how to keep floors creaking when rolling a dolly over them, or which boom
> mike has the best range.
The latter is only important to a "filmmaker" who is also doing his own
dolly work. (See more comments below.) That's a point YOU are missing.
Also, I don't use the term "boom mic." A boom is what holds a mic. That
same mic can be gaffer-taped to a piece of furniture out of camera range
and still work perfectly -- no boom involved. Conversely, a boom could
hold an omni mic for some specific purpose. So: aren't you specifically
talking about *hypercardiod condenser* (AKA "shotgun") microphones? Does
the magazine teach readers the correct names for pieces of equipment? Or
for their characteristics?
In the article you cite, if the magazine measured "range" it seems
to me that what they really measured was either *sensitivity* or
*directionality* or both. You can get equivalent "range" on any mic by
raising the gain so it amplifies more distant sounds to audible levels.
But you might get more noise with some mics than with others when doing
that, and closer sounds might be overmodulated.
BTW you can get mic information from equipment catalogs and other
magazines. Personally, I would simply hire a good sound person (either
from previous jobs for me, or on recommendation from producers whose
judgment I trust) and expect that person to have the experience.
Even if I couldn't afford to pay that person for production, I'd
ask if he/she would simply advise me on mic selection for maybe a half
hour on the phone, perhaps in return for a screen credit. But then you
still need somebody who knows how to handle a boom, which is a very tough
job. After all, it is VERY possible to record HORRIBLE sound with the
PERFECT mic. Duh.
Here are some more tips. Speaking for myself, although I vastly
prefer AKG for studio work, I hated their shotguns any time I used them,
and preferred Sennheiser. (Things may be different with newer models.)
However, I have also used a traditional dynamic cardioid (like an RE-16)
with great effectiveness, in lieu of a true shotgun. The wider pattern
reduced problems with off-axis pickup, with a trade-off in sensitivity.
See: that paragraph was intended to demonstrate that you can get
this kind of information from newsgroups, not just magazines. However,
these things happen to be OFF-TOPIC for misc.writing.screenplays -- which
is one of the issues others raised earlier. I don't read r.a.m.p. myself,
but surely other mic experts are there. You can also find them in
rec.audio.pro.
As for the squeaky-floor problem... my solution is, take note of squeaky
floors when scouting locations, and don't shoot there. Maybe that's too
simple, sorry. Okay, forget that, how about a crane instead of a dolly?
Too expensive. Okay, a jimmy jib, then? Never mind, forget it.
Same answer as above, really. I'd want my DP and grips to be able to
solve problems like that. It's not my job as the W/P/D. But maybe I'm
spoiled -- I've gotten talented crew people like that for free. I only
work above the line <g>.
> That's the type of info that is valuable to me in FilmCrew. And, boring as it
> sounds, the Medical Insurance article was a good read--it's important to people
> who make a living making films, not working another job where they get insurance
> and trying to make films on the weekends.
I've read articles about production insurance for many years, in other
journals. And as a member of various professional associations, I get
offers in the mail from insurance companies, so basically I don't even
have to seek out the info at all. Most of these associations have their
own journals as well. So perhaps the best step is to sign up with (for
example) AIVF, IFP, ITVA, and so on.
> So, my suggestion to you is: don't subscribe to the thing because you won't get
> anything out of it. Man, I have never met a more antagonistic group of people
> than the ones I have seen here on this list.
Hmm, no wonder you are confused. This is not a mailing list, it's a
Usenet newsgroup. Problem #1 solved.
Now, check out your closest set of Usenet netiquette guidelines. They
will tell you first to get to know a group by reading it BEFORE posting;
also, to read its charter and/or its FAQ; and then, to post only if your
message is on-topic for that group.
Since this is a writing-specific group, it is ignorant (sorry, I'm
just being blunt and literal, not insulting) to complain that the
correspondents here aren't filmmakers! It's like complaining that people
here aren't scuba divers or whatever.
That many of us *have* made films is irrelevant. My point is that
location production tips are clearly not what this particular group is
about. ESPECIALLY location tips aimed at grips, gaffers, and camera
assistants. I mean, really!
> This was a simple post from a filmmaker trying to spread some good news about a
> helpful magazine he had found. That's it!
>
> I repeat: I'M NOT WITH THE DAMN MAGAZINE.
Y'know, Kenneth, personally I have no problem whatsoever in believing
you!
For that matter, I halfway suspect that some of these other folks are
just teasing you. For example, I don't know how you missed it, but Better
Duck even TOLD you he was just busting your chops, several messages back.
I don't know why you've ended up in this long drawn-out thread about
your messages' credibility, but frankly you've contributed to the thread
in volume. And people have pretty much explained the trouble we've had
recently with excess commercial noise in the group. Surely you could have
just shrugged and said "okay" somewhere about 5-10 messages back, dontcha
think?
> Now, I guess you'll have to believe that or not. I don't care. But, I'll tell
> you this...if I was with the magazine, all of you have sure made my job that
> much easier. I never would have gotten a thread this long without the couple of
> buttheads that are dead set on making themselves feel like they are better than
> everyone else.
Um, how many "buttheads" do YOU see in this thread? (I don't count, this
is my first post.)
Why don't you boys just stop arguing and have fun? Filmmaking is fun.
Hard work, but fun. A few more days on location and a few less days
reading Usenet would probably be good for everybody.
Me included, now that I think about it. :-)
The Searcher
If you want to meet an even nastier set of people, hop on over to the
rec.music.debbie-gibson group.
LWG
Kenneth Bearden wrote in message <35743E36...@brokersys.com>...
>What a case you make! I bet you stayed up all night analyzing what I said
so
>that you can make yourself look good in this post. Did you and Better Duck
go
>to the same school?
Took about one minutes. And it would be an honour to have gone to the same
school as Better Duck. Unfortunately, he and I are on different halves of
the planet.
>I can tell that you're not a filmmaker--because it's not important to you
to
>learn how to keep floors creaking when rolling a dolly over them, or which
boom
>mike has the best range.
I leave all that to others. I just stand around and look pretty.
>
>That's the type of info that is valuable to me in FilmCrew. And, boring as
it
>sounds, the Medical Insurance article was a good read--it's important to
people
>who make a living making films, not working another job where they get
insurance
>and trying to make films on the weekends.
>
>So, my suggestion to you is: don't subscribe to the thing because you
won't get
>anything out of it. Man, I have never met a more antagonistic group of
people
>than the ones I have seen here on this list. You writers (if you really
are a
>writer) need to get out in the sun more often!
Why are you so bitter? I mean, you asked me what it was that your first post
contained that antagonised people and I told you. If you didn't want to
know, then you shouldn't have asked.
>
>This was a simple post from a filmmaker trying to spread some good news
about a
>helpful magazine he had found. That's it!
>
>I repeat: I'M NOT WITH THE DAMN MAGAZINE.
I never said you were. I said you used phrases that sounded like you were.
And you said, which phrases and I told you.
>
>Now, I guess you'll have to believe that or not. I don't care. But, I'll
tell
>you this...if I was with the magazine, all of you have sure made my job
that
>much easier. I never would have gotten a thread this long without the
couple of
>buttheads that are dead set on making themselves feel like they are better
than
>everyone else.
I don't think answering your questions makes me better than anyone.
>
>See anything that reminds you of yourself in that? I sure do. It's the
louder
>part--you, screaming at the top of your lungs, "Look at me! Look at me!
I'm
>better than anybody else on this newsgroup!"
I just asked my wife if I'm better than anyone else on this newsgroup and
she
tells me that I probably am. She didn't say what at though.
Lawrence.
cine...@hknet.com
> Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> >
> > LWG wrote:
> >
> > > The product here appears designed for middle aged gadget freak wannabes who
> > > may or may not run video companies specialising in recording bamitzvahs and
> > > weddings, but dream of moving to LA one day once they get their medical
> > > insurance sorted out. In fact, it sounds amazingly naff!
> > >
> > > Definitely looks like a marketing job to me. Don't know whether it is or
> > > isn't but I can understand people being suspicious.
> > >
> > > Lawrence.
> >
> > What a case you make! I bet you stayed up all night analyzing what I said so
> > that you can make yourself look good in this post. Did you and Better Duck go
> > to the same school?
I know he didn't stay up all night; in fact it probably took Lawrence all of
five minutes to write that, at the most.
And he described perfectly why your post came across as an advertising
spam. Get over it. We did.
derek
PS Someone mentioned Nick Hornby's book Hi Fidelity.
It's currently being made into a film -- not sure what stage it's at.
IMEL
>
> PS Someone mentioned Nick Hornby's book Hi Fidelity.
>
> It's currently being made into a film -- not sure what stage it's at.
It's going to star John Cusack! I mean, I love the guy, but the book is
very British.
Ilana
cine...@hknet.com
Maybe that's because it's set in London? ;-}
Good role for Cusack; though seriously I think the story could adapt well
to any western country. Look forward to it.
derek