If you’re interested in where the cameras are placed in a baseball stadium and what actions each one is assigned to, you probably want to start back on part one or two.

Part 3 begins a look at what other crew members are busy with behind-the-scenes. Most of these people are “on the truck” – so called because they often work from the production truck outside in the parking lot.

Although it would seem the producer and director has a lot on their shoulders, even an average game of baseball can be so complicated that much of the instruction remains unspoken.

In the fast pace of sports broadcasting, each individual crew member needs to know their role in literally hundreds of situations before the broadcast even begins.

Just like on the field, everyone plays their own position and covers their own areas. In the fast-paced game-play, there’s often not enough time to tell anyone (let alone everyone) what to do. It helps when the crew members have experienced years of practice and exposure to new situations so that they always know what to do without a plethora of guidance during the game.

That is to say: a solid, experienced crew is just as important as its leaders.

Producer

Like in most productions, the producer is the one who pretty much runs the show. They’re responsible for the program itself and making sure everyone is on the same page before and during the broadcast.

Much of the broadcast is planned out in a rundown before the show (this answer questions like: in what inning do we recognize what sponsor? when do we break in with a game recap? etc.). However, sports broadcasting means rapidly changing situations and requires crew accuracy often within seconds or less.

Thus, the producer communicates directly with the director and the on-air talent (play-by-play, color commentator, and any other analysts on the crew) thru headsets and earpieces.

This includes countdowns into and out of commercial breaks, cues for sponsored reads or other advertisements, or even a heads-up on certain shots or replay angles that the commentators might want to talk about. The latter is how the director can be ready with the shot of say, a manager’s reaction or the graphic of a sponsor, right as the analyst begins to talk about it.

The producer can also inject new stats into the broadcast as certain scenarios develop or call for certain replays (or volunteer which replay angles to show) during the broadcast.

STATS / GRAPHICS / ASSISTANT PRODUCER

Since the lead producer has so much riding on his or her shoulders, there is a team of individuals ready with support.

Statisticians serve as the in-game research department, helping the commentators and graphic coordinators by looking up numbers for various situations.

The graphics crew updates the graphics with new information as needed and readies the correct graphical elements at the right times. Other assistants can be added as necessary.

Director

While the producer is concerned with the overall scope of the broadcast, the director is concerned with the second-by-second rigor of calling for the right camera angles.

The director does most of the talking behind-the-scenes. Everytime you see a cut, it means the director has called for a new shot. Keep in mind, during the more exciting parts of the game, there might be several cuts a second.

It is the director who gives basic instruction to camera operators and the rest of the crew (pan up, follow this player, cues that replay, leave some space for a graphic, etc.) and also calls individual shots (i.e.: “ready 2, take 2″ would be the cue for camera 2 to hold a shot at the ready, and then for the TD to “take” that shot live).

Technical Director (T.D.)

The technical director sits beside the director on the truck and physically pushes the individual buttons on the production switcher to call up the individual angles, replays, and graphics as the director calls for them.

This leaves the director free to watch the monitors and communicate with the crew so everyone always knows what’s up next.

Color Shaders

Harsh shadows and ever changing lighting conditions are part of the tough reality of shooting anything outdoors – and when a camera operator is tracking a 98 MPH fastball from sun to shade, the last thing they have time to do is adjust their own iris and grab a new white balance.

That’s where the color shaders come in. These operators sit in the production truck in from of a bank of monitors displaying all the camera angles. They have the job of controlling the color and exposure on each remotely from that location.

This accomplishes two things. Obviously, it allow the camera operator to focus entirely on getting the right shot, framing, and movement. But more importantly, it assures that all the individual shots match in color temperature and brightness.

It’s amazingly hard to photograph two different things from two different locations and get them to match. Furthermore, the camera ops are helpless to do this themselves since they can only see their individual shot.

Replay Operators

Instant replay is perhaps the most unique feature to watching a game on television. Replay operators are in charge of recording the various angles that you see and cuing them at the appropriate times during the game.

Unlike cameras, which are numbered, replay machines are typically either lettered (Replay A, B, C, etc.) or named for colors (Replay Red, Blue, Green, etc.). That way they can be referred to in brief as “C,” “Blue,” “F,” “Orange” and not be confused with live shots (referred to in brief as “1,” “2,” “3,” etc.).

Editor

The replay operators can throw together short, simple edits of clips from their stations, but for more complicated edits, there are dedicated editors on hand.

Oftentimes you’ll want to throw together a shot game recap or a highlights package of shots captured during a broadcast. When the replay isn’t good enough as is – maybe it’s too long or you want to show content from many places all at once – the footage is passed of to the editor to put these pieces together.

Typically you’ll see the editors’ work in the post-game highlights, but short compilations of shots after commercial breaks (or the collection of pre-game clips) may also be their handiwork.

Audio

This is pretty self explanatory. The board operator monitors levels and punches the channels for various mics or prerecorded sounds (music, graphic noises, etc.) on and off at the right times.

Other technicians are on hand to make sure everything is working properly and scramble to fix things when they aren’t.

Production Assistant (PA)

Sometimes referred to as “runners,” PAs are an entry level position that takes care of anything and everything else that needs accomplished during the broadcast.

It doesn’t take long for someone to need an extra hand or for an errand to need run. Production assistants exist so these things can be tackled without pulling another crew member away from their assigned task.

PAs fulfill an important role and have the opportunity to learn first-hand how the process works from a variety of different angles.

***

It takes a lot of people to pull off a modern broadcast like you see on your television at home. Lots of people with many years of combined experience are working behind-the-scenes to make sure you see the game without a hitch.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

In part one, we took a look at the most basic, five camera setup necessary for a baseball broadcast.

It’s official, @mlb #OpeningDay is underway. Looks like I’m spending #EasterMonday with @espn,

— Brendan Shick (@BrendanShick) April 1, 2013

Obviously, when covering a MLB game on FSN, NESN, MASN, Root Sports, or ESPN there are more cameras than this.

We’ve already discussed how these additional cameras are only used for about 15% of shots – and mostly just during replays at that.

We also talked about a few basic ways to supplement the 5-6 camera setup. Now, we’re looking at some of the places you stash the excess cameras in a high budget broadcast to get the best angles.

With PNC Park’s unique center field bullpen location, the center field cameras can pull double duty. They need only pan straight down to get the shot. (Photo Credit: Brendan Shick)

Bullpens

When you want to show a pitcher warming up, it’s always good to have a camera dedicated to that shot. The commentators might start talking about him at any time.

Low-end ESPN3 broadcasts will often stick an unmanned GoPro to the bullpen wall just for this purpose. Higher-end shows might go with a handheld wireless option or even a stationary camera.

ESPN is also famous for their Steadicam shots where the operator will run from the bullpen on to the field, following the relief pitcher on pitching changes.

FOX follows suit on the bigger games. You’ll usually see this shot right before the commercial break.

Fail and Foul

If you drew a line following the foul line into the stands, it would represent the best place to put a camera for replays of close fair/foul calls. Again, you wouldn’t use this too much, but it provides an interesting perspective in replays.

During non-game action, it gives you another camera for shots of the crowd or other ballpark flavor.

Shoulder-Mounted Wireless

This was alluded to in part one – but it never hurts to have multiple wireless cameras.

You can place these anywhere in the park (signal permitting) and move them between locations quickly.

One popular use is to put the viewer right in the fan experience – think excited fans swarming the camera in the outfield right after a nearby home team home run.

One of many wireless camera operators at PNC Park in Pittsburgh (Photo Credit: Brendan Shick)

Booth Cams

You probably haven’t seen very many sport broadcasts without an occasional shot of the commentators. That’s why you probably want to stick a camera (even if it’s unmanned) right up there with them in the booth.

If there’s a pregame or postgame show – that’s going to require a couple cameras too – probably in a different location than the play-by-play guys.

Concourse Cameras

I mentioned this briefly in the last post, but beside just showing game action, concourse cameras are great for getting a shot of a commentator on the edge of the field or in the stands from a distance.

They also grab shots of people walking the concourse before and after games, recorded to use as insert shots at the beginning of the broadcast or to be used as bump shots to commercials later in the broadcast.

Unique Perspectives

Every stadium is different, and so each has some uniquely-placed camera wells that work well in that park but that you’ll find nowhere else.

For one example, check out where Tom Guilmette, left field camera operator for NESN (Boston Red Sox broadcasts), is placed: right on top of Fenway’s Green Monster:

Night time 360 shot from camera position on left field roof at Fenway 360.io/HTTYHu

— Tom Guilmette (@tomguilmette) May 26, 2012

Shots Outside the Stadium

Most of this is recorded before the game even begins (sometimes even including the Goodyear blimp shots).

The scenics of Jacksonville that were used during ‘Monday Night Countdown’ were shot the night of the previous MNF game there in late October. We did not have a crew shooting scenics Monday. There were no graphic or audio mentions indicating the shot was live, though we understand viewers may have been under this assumption.

- Unnamed ESPN spokesperson, Yahoo Sports

Note the reference to the crew shooting scenics. It’s not uncommon to have no crew members shooting such scenics on the same night as the broadcast.

That doesn’t mean they don’t usually fly people in the night before and shoot a selection of stock footage (think particularly the timelapse shots right after a commercial break) around the city for the next day.

 ***

Wow, that’s a lot of cameras. But if you’re watching a professional televised broadcast, the camera crew is still just a small part of the group that brings the game to your living room. Starting in part three, we’ll look at the other guys who are hard at work behind-the-scenes.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

37 days until Opening Day and my return to work in the ever exciting sports broadcast industry. I figure this means I should acknowledge the start of Spring Training last Saturday.

It’s Like a Call-up, Only Not Quite

Working in MiLB certainly has unique perks, but one rewarding part is seeing a player get his first call-up to the show – and while a Spring Training invitation doesn’t technically count as an MLB call-up it’s still a big deal for the players.

Frankly, now that I’ve done a couple tours of duty in the same league, there’s a lot of names I recognize making their first appearance on a bigger stage. We’re talking guys who much of the world is just now learning about, but who I’ve been tracking since they were playing class-A baseball, or before.

Nick Castellanos is one name that comes to mind. He’s now listed as the Detroit Tigers No. 1 prospect, and was once rumored to be Miguel Cabrera’s replacement at 3B during the World Baseball Classic.

Detroit Tigers (Photo credit: Keith Allison)

I still remember the game in which Castellanos tied the West Michigan Whitecaps (Class-A, Detroit Tigers) single season hit record, previously held by local hitting streak-legend, Robert Fick. Twas a special moment.

Unfortunately, the Whitecaps beat the Fort Wayne TinCaps (Class-A, San Diego Padres) quite handily in that game forcing an overly epic do-or-die (i.e. – winner clinches the league’s final playoff spot) final game of the season the following day.

All was well though, as Fort Wayne brought out ace pitcher Keyvius Sampson, who I half-expected at San Diego’s spring training this year, to successfully close out the regular season the next day.

There’s a Story Behind Every Destination

Looking at the players’ journeys to the big leagues might seem a little off topic for this blog, but there is a corollary I’d like to share.

Regardless of whether you’re a player, someone behind-the-scenes, or choose a career in an entirely different industry – there’s a story behind how you made yourself what you are. Here’s one of those stories. My own:

Some Personal Backstory

My first forays into broadcast television were news-based. I grew up in the era when high school broadcast programs could barely afford a weekly newscast on the school’s closed-circuit television channel.

We had rare opportunities to get on ‘real television’ (in a top-40 market) through programs like FOX17 Student News and local public access. Although I did an internship filming PSAs and broadcasting Indy concerts, having zero sport teams at my high school meant it was mostly all news (not real news at that) all the time.

Likewise, at my collegiate alma mater, the broadcasting program revolved almost entirely around news gathering (for television) and music (for radio) – and although this is not uncommon, I knew I ultimately wanted to helm a career in something more demanding – episodic tv, film production, spot production, or similar.

Sports Broadcast Joins the Radar…

One of my first exposures to the realities of the world of live sports television came when a professor exposed me to the work of Tom Guilmette, a freelance director of photography and camera operator for NESN’s broadcasts of Boston Red Sox games (check out his website for some great insight into both these careers).

This was a sort of gestalt switch for me. I realized that:

1. Being in sports broadcast is not only a sustainable career, it can be quite lucrative in the right cities.
2. It can actually be a surprisingly difficult job at times, which was something I’d been looking for as a lifelong overachiever then stuck in televised news.
3. The obscure work schedules such a career entails means you can build a parallel career on the side – allowing you to also dabble in other things that you love doing.

…And Eventually Becomes Part of a Lifestyle

It was shortly after this that I chose to start consistently shooting highlights for HTV Sports – unfortunately, these were generally looked down upon as the easy-out, fun stories to cover in the HTV newsroom, but that was okay in the short-term.

I opted for these stories when I could up until I moved into the role of the show’s director and my duties changed entirely. It was hard at times to convince my colleagues that my goal here was to launch myself into a more difficult career path: live sports.

And, if you’re already a reader of this blog, you’ll know that’s exactly one of the things I’ve done since those olden days.

***

Stay tuned. I’m hoping to expand the number of baseball related posts (bookmark that link to stay posted) and share more tips about my work as the summer progresses.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

You might remember my list of Oscar predictions last year where I correctly named the winner in 16 out of 24 categories for the second year in a row.

A chart of all the Academy Award nominees. Titles I’ve personally screened are in green. Purple indicates films and shorts I was unable to see.

Well, this year I’ve stepped it up a notch, adding my personal pick for the film I want to win to each category – and of course that wouldn’t be fair if I hadn’t seen all the films, so I’ve traveled hundreds of miles over the past few months just to get to screenings of everything possible.

Other than the documentary shorts and foreign films, I’ve only missed two nominees (titles not screened are noted in the categories below).

My “Will Win” and “Dark Horse” picks were chosen based on aggregated results of various industry experts, winners of other award shows, trends from years past, and my own personal knack for such things

As for who the Academy will actually pick Sunday night, there are a lot more close races than in recent years. If I match last year’s total of 16 correct picks (or if anyone does) I’ll be more than a touch surprised.

Best Picture

Nominees:

• Amour; Margaret Menegoz, Stefan Arndt, Veit Heiduschka and Michael Katz
• Argo; Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck and George Clooney
• Beasts of the Southern Wild; Dan Janvey, Josh Penn and Michael Gottwald
• Django Unchained; Stacey Sher, Reginald Hudlin and Pilar Savone
• Les Misérables; Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward and Cameron Mackintosh
• Life of Pi; Gil Netter, Ang Lee and David Womark
• Lincoln; Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy
• Silver Linings Playbook; Donna Gigliotti, Bruce Cohen and Jonathan Gordon
• Zero Dark Thirty; Mark Boal, Kathryn Bigelow and Megan Ellison

Will Win: Argo

Dark Horse: Lincoln or Life of Pi

Should Have Been Nominated: see my top 10 list

Should Win: from this list, Life of Pi (but see my top 10 for a definitive pick)

Within the next couple weeks, I’ll be releasing my top ten list for the past year – and you’ll see that these weren’t my top 9 picks of the year. That being said, each of these films has its own strength and makes predicting what the Academy will choose a little more difficult than usual. Also is the issue that in past years, the trend has been as follows:

1. 9 times out of 10, the Academy awards the same picture Best Picture and Best Director.
2. The Producers Guild and the Academy almost always award their Best Picture awards to the same film.

Argo won at the Producers Guild despite Ben Affleck not being nominated by the Academy for Best Director – so one trend or the other won’t hold true this year – and so, what are usually the two easiest categories to guess are actually up in the air this year.

As Affleck did win at both the Producers Guild and the Director’s Guild awards (and pretty much everywhere else), expect Argo to take home the win.

Best Director

Nominees:

• Amour, Michael Haneke
• Beasts of the Southern Wild, Benh Zeitlin
• Life of Pi, Ang Lee
• Lincoln, Steven Spielberg
• Silver Linings Playbook, David O. Russell

Will Win: Lincoln

Dark Horse: Life of Pi or Silver Linings Playbook

Should Have Been Nominated: Argo, Les Misérables, or Django Unchained

Should Win: Life of Pi

Ben Affleck has gotten a lot of praise for his achievement on Argo - and has had no problem winning awards for it from everyone who isn’t the Academy. But, not being nominated here, he’ll be passed over in favor of someone else.

Spielberg, Lee, and Russell have the most buzz among those actually nominated – and the slew of nominations given to Lincoln and Life of Pi are proof that they are well liked by the Academy.

Given the fact that the Academy tends to favor actors’ directors in this category, I think Spielberg has a clear edge over Lee – note that Life of Pi didn’t even come close to landing a nomination for acting, despite receiving 11 nominations overall.

Best Actor

Nominees:

• Flight, Denzel Washington
• Les Misérables, Hugh Jackman
• Lincoln, Daniel Day-Lewis
• The Master, Joaquin Phoenix
• Silver Linings Playbook, Bradley Cooper

Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln

Dark Horse: very slight chance for Hugh Jackman, Les Misérables

Should Have Been Nominated: John Hawkes, The Sessions

Should Win: Hugh Jackman, Les Misérables

Not Screened: Somehow I missed The Master…

Daniel Day-Lewis has the most buzz for his portrayal of our Civil War President.

This should be one of the easiest predictions on your entire ballot, but if you insist on shaking things up, you can insert Hugh Jackman (whose Les Misérables performance would have easily won in any other year…) or Joaquin Phoenix.

But seriously, mark Day-Lewis on your ballot. He’s already won at the Screen Actors Guild – which is a very strong indicator as most of the voters are the same there as at the Academy. Even if you get lucky enough to win with a Dark Horse pick here, your friends will hate you for the rest of your life. Don’t try it.

Best Actress

Nominees:

• Amour, Emmanuelle Riva
• Beasts of the Southern Wild, Quvenzhané Wallis
• Silver Linings Playbook, Jennifer Lawrence
• The Impossible, Naomi Watts
• Zero Dark Thirty, Jessica Chastain

Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook

Dark Horse: Emmanuelle Riva, Amour or Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty

Should Have Been Nominated: Keira Knightly, Anna Karenina

Should Win: Emmanuelle Riva or Quvenzhané Wallis

You know what I just said about SAG and their awards matching the Academy? Well, that’s what caused an upset in the Best Actress category last year (Meryl Streep won instead of the widely expected Viola Davis). So, tread here with caution apparently…

That being said, this is another close race this year. Second-time nominee, Jennifer Lawrence (previously nominated for Winter’s Bone) is viewed as a frontrunner, but Jessica Chastain is not far behind with her performance in Kathryn Bigalow’s Zero Dark Thirty (remember when Bigalow cleaned house with The Hurt Locker a few years back…).

Oldest-ever nominee Emmanuelle Riva is also rightly on many people’s list (as one of the few people in the States whose seen Amour and actually knows French, I can attest to her performance’s worthiness). Youngest-ever nominee Quvenzhané Wallis also delivered an amazingly natural performance that should win her the award, but she unfortunately doesn’t stand much chance of getting recognized for that accomplishment.

CONTINUE READING: SUPPORTING PERFORMANCES & SCREENPLAYS

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

Earlier in the week, I shared why I don’t make time to watch or re-watch as many high-quality films or as much high-quality media as I would like, opting instead for lesser fare. It’s a problem far too common among people today.

I’d like to help solve that problem, as I’m sure others would like to kick the habit as much as I do.

So, here are five suggested ways to fix the problem. I can speak from personal experience on all of these options.

1. Make quality films more accessible

In this day and age, this is the easy part. You don’t have to own a large DVD or Blu-Ray collection to watch stuff anymore. Sign up for Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime, or what ever other video streaming sites suit your fancy. Add their apps to your devices and hook them up to the tv. Keep an eye on your local tv listings to see what’s on that you may want to see. Or browse a friend’s collection, your local library, the friendly neighborhood Redbox, etc. to borrow films. Maybe get a frequent moviegoer card if you prefer the big screen.

2. Get someone else to commit to watching on a regular schedule

Usually, if an action affects other people, we’ll be more committed to our plan to carry out that action. If you know someone else is also striving to see some good films (or even a particular one) combine your efforts. It helps to make it a weekly thing. Should you prefer, many places have local film clubs you can join.

I got a group of people together to watch a film every Thursday evening at one point, alternating between must see classics of the “we-should-have-seen-this-but-haven’t” variety and newer films each week – and even though most of use haven’t seen each other in years now, we still spur each other toward watching certain things so that we can compare notes later.

3. Avoid “Paradox of Choice”

In today’s media saturated environment, we’re very prone to what’s known by psychologists as paradox of choice.

According to numerous scientific surveys and studies, the human mind can actually be given too many options to choose between (e.g. too many films to watch), at which point, it just decides to do (watch) nothing. This is why people with 200+ channel satellite television packages always complain there’s nothing good on TV even though years ago our grandparents didn’t ever have that problem with only 3 networks (ABC, CBS, NBC).

Although such paradox of choice is hard to avoid, there are several ways you can attempt to do so:

• Work from one particular theme or genre at a time. Or any other classification scheme for that matter. I’ve even made a list of must-sees and forced myself to go thru it alphabetically before.

• Work thru one filmmaker’s canon. If war movies aren’t your thing or you just can stand watching 25 westerns in alphabetical order, try picking a particular filmmaker you admire (or despise) and viewing all his or her work (optional tip: do it chronologically). This is popular with actors, but I personally like doing it for directors or DPs. Maybe you even have a favorite production designer?

• Watch all the Oscar nominees. I’ve attempted to do this for several years now and quite frankly it’s rewarding because it makes watching the award ceremony a lot more exciting. These aren’t always films everyone can enjoy, but it’s a great list of what the critics like. Start by trying to see all the Best Picture nominees for a given year and then (if you’re really committed) try to fit in all the other categories. Or maybe run thru all the winners from a given decade in your favorite category instead.

• Don’t add films you don’t really want to see to your queues. It seems obvious, but it’s so easy to let them sneak in there. Having a long list of stuff you don’t really care about only make you less motivated to tackle it.

4. Force yourself into a solid deadline

Many people don’t follow through on self-imposed deadlines, but with films, there are a few ways to find some solid ones you’ll be less likely to budge on:

• Hulu and other sites often only buy rights to certain material for a given length of time. Many times, the imminent threat of expiration for something that had been in my queue for a long time finally convinced me (once literally in the final hour) to sit down and watch it – instead of paying more for the privilege later.

• Rent something from Redbox. They occasionally send out free one-night DVD rental codes (some are only valid on a given day) in hopes you’ll forget to return the DVD/Blu-Ray the next morning. Oftentimes, I’ll catch one of these codes and run out to grab a few movies (each code works once per credit/debit card) with no particular plan of when to watch them. Being on the clock, I naturally always watch them all within 24 hours or so to avoid getting charged.

•  Whenever a sequel or remake comes out to a movie you didn’t see, make it a point to watch the original(s) before the new release.

5. Combine multiple strategies

This needs no explanation, yet can take many forms. For inspiration:

• If you liked the Oscar nominee tip in number 3, make sure to use the date of the Academy Award ceremony as a solid deadline. It’s a lot more fun to pick winners, hear the jokes, and see all those montages if you actually know what happened in every film.

• Find a friend, group of friends, or club who likes the same genre or filmmaker as you, make a list, and commit to watching thru it together. Or, if they’re the artsy type, use the Oscar nominee list.

• Watch all of a particular filmmaker’s films before their new one comes out (for example, see all Christopher Nolan’s work before the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises [2012]).

Just Watch Something Great

None of these tips are anything but common sense, but in a media-saturated culture we just need a boost sometimes. They’re all so simple, it’s not hard to combine four or five ideas when you really need to. Just get out there and watch something. Something great.

Leave a comment if you have any tips that are missing from the list, if some work better than others for you, or if you end up watching something inspired from this post. Maybe a solid list will form below to help others with tip #3.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

To be sure I’m 100% clear, nothing in this article should be taken as encouragement to decrease the quality of one’s content creation – but rather as an encouragement to change one’s viewing habits.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive…

But, despite being the solid long-term approach, having the best content may actually hurt your viewership numbers in the short-term.

I’ll give you a personal example.

FOX’s Touch: A Stellar Recommendation Still Languishing

Last year in May, a very close friend of mine recommended that I start watching FOX’s then somewhat new show, Touch. At the time, much of season one was available on Hulu (now only accessible with Hulu Plus).

Now to be clear, this friend is the type whose recommendations cannot go easily ignored. We not only share almost the exact same list of favorite movies, but have historically rank-ordered any set of films nearly the same – even liking or disliking them for the same reasons.

(In fact, when I find I like or dislike a film and can’t figure out why, I just ask this person why – sounds stupid, but works every time)

So, fast-forward to eight and a half months later: It’s now February, Touch Season 2 premieres later this week, and to be completely honest, I’ve still only seen 3 or 4 episodes from season one.

I don’t watch all that much episodic television, but I’ve absolutely loved all the Touch episodes I’ve seen so far. It’s easily my favorite episodic television show since season one of NBC’s Heroes (on second thought, maybe it’s even better than that), which in turn has been my favorite show since FOX’s The X-Files in the early 90s.

Touch Season 2 Premieres this Friday, February 8th on FOX

So why haven’t I seen more of the show?

I can’t remember what episode I was listening to, but it was sometime last summer when I heard David Chen, Devindra Hardawar, and Adam Quigley devote quite a bit of their podcast, the /Filmcast, to a discussion about the quality of the material they choose to watch from their Netflix queue.

Contrary to what you might assume, the general consensus was that the better the film or movie, the longer it spent in the queue before they actually sat down and watched it.

Why?

It’s human psychology. Oftentimes you’re just using Netflix for background noise. You fill up your queue with content, but skip over the best content because you want to save it for the best time:

• Maybe you’re eating or making dinner and can’t actually devote 100% of your attention to the TV.
• Maybe you’re the type who leaves the television on while you fall asleep and don’t want to miss the ending of something important.

You save the best content for when you actually want to (and can) fully devote two hours to it uninterrupted.

In today’s fast paced world, that seems like a big commitment – and as a culture, it’s one we don’t make as often as we think.

Hence why I still haven’t finished Touch Season One in time for Season 2, despite how much I’m looking forward to it (I’ve watched an entire season of Revolution, Ancient Aliens, and who-knows-what-else instead – not that any of these are bad, but they are my second favorites). Usually, when we do opt to devote two hours to a “better” or more serious film, we spend that time at the movie theater instead of at Hulu, Netflix, or RedBox.

That is, we’ll often more readily watch Robots Fight Monkeys: The Sequel Reloaded than Schindler’s List (1993) – even though we are looking forward to seeing Schindler’s List a lot more.

It’s not true of only movies and television. For instance, I probably have more web browser tabs open than items in my Hulu queue (we’re sometimes talking hundreds here…admit it – you do it too).

I deal with the pertinent ones first, then move on to the less pressing ones. But within the latter half, I save the ones I expect to be best for last (including the one written about here, which lasted for a month) For the “high energy, high devotion” times, that is.

This is So Common, You Don’t Realize It Happening Every Day

It’s well-known that every student claims to have seen the critically-acclaimed and ground-breaking Citizen Kane (1941). It’s also commonly accepted that half of them are lying (they’ve even done an actual survey on this phenomenon – turns out, The Godfather [1972] is a better example).

Now I saw Citizen Kane at least 2 or 3 times just during film school alone (no, really, I did…), but it’s easy to see how the “Netflix Queue” phenomenon described above could cause this statistic.

*****

There are other ways being “good” or “popular” can work against you.

I had a film professor back in film school who still hasn’t watched a single installment of The Lord of the Rings trilogy to this day – simply because “there’s too much hype” surrounding the franchise (I know others who are doing the same for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey [2012])

You or I might think he’s missing out, but I can emphasize to some extent. I refuse to watch James Cameron’s Titanic (1997) for the same reason. Similarly, I despised Pokémon – but adored the less popular Digimon. And yes, I even hated Star Wars based solely on its hype until I actually saw it…if you know me, this seems like a very big deal.

*****

It’s even built into the system. If you’ve ever made an effort to watch all the Oscar nominated films before the Academy’s award ceremony, you know that it can be a hard thing to do.

Regardless of how you feel about the Academy’s picks each year, these films unarguably have a huge amount of critical appeal and thus are all considered high quality and popular within the right circles.

And yet, many have limited releases or are otherwise exceedingly hard to find (you know this if you’ve been trying to catch a screening of Amour [2012] near you – despite the fact it was nominated in more categories than most other nominees).

There’s a plethora of shorts and feature documentaries to be seen online for free (which produces great exposure for countless professionals), but you rarely find the ones the Academy nominates without paying a fair sum of money (these are currently showing theatrically in the ShortsHD package if you happen to live in a major city). So, somewhat counter-intuitively, viewership for these works actually decreases short-term.

These are just some of the perils of high quality content that are a barrier to the content creator reaching his or her maximum exposure.

*****

It’s not all bad of course. Your content may have a lower “conversion rate,” so to speak, but you’ll be attracting more people to it to begin with and will be able to command higher prices, where applicable.

Also note content we feel we must view live (such as televised sporting events) doesn’t suffer from the same trends, as we make time for it when it first airs.

So, if you’re a media creator, keep the high quality coming and strive to raise the bar with every new thing you produce.

If you’re a consumer (that means everyone), try to put aside some extra time to watch something you know will be satisfying, particularly if you’ve been putting it of for a while. (I know this can be hard, so I’ll be putting up a followup article later in the week with some tips to help – sign up for email updates if you don’t want to miss it).

###

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

Here’s my top 10 picks from the Super Bowl 2013 commercials in no particular order. Can’t say any of them are as good as some of my favorites from years past, but enjoy anyway!

M&M’s “Anything for Love”

Not really a surprise ending – more like you already know where it’s going, and you’re just waiting to see it.

Oreo Library Fight

Pretty sure everyone loved this one.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

All the footage from Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) has looked so good so far that it’s no surprise the Super Bowl spot measures up.

[tweet https://twitter.com/BrendanShick/status/298261677948940290 width=auto]

Doritos Goat 4 Sale

The Doritos Crash the SuperBowl competition has historically been at the extremes of hit or miss over the years. This one’s okay.

Taco Bell Viva Young Retirement Home

Not showing us it’s a Taco Bell commercial til the very end…genius.

[tweet https://twitter.com/BrendanShick/status/298231324119015426]

Iron Man 3

Great use of the “show us less” philosophy here.

Gagnam Style Pistachios

Sure, Gagnam Style is a little stale by now, but this still barely makes the top 10.

Tide: Miracle Montana Stain

Clever concept with a twist ending. Classic Super Bowl commercial recipe.

Samsung: Next Big Thing

Bonus points for splurging on a two minute spot.

Axe Apollo Send a Lifeguard Into Space – Or Something Like That

Spending extra money on the ad campaign to send someone into space…as if buying the air time didn’t cost enough. It got enough people talking about the gimmick to just barely push this one into the top 10.

BONUS PICK: Allstate Forbidden Fruit

I’m adding this one last minute. Another good example where you don’t know that product til the last minute.

***

Whether your favorites made my list or not, be sure to share which ones you chose in the comments.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

It doesn’t take an industry maverick to tell you that it’s harder and harder to sell ad slots on television. Between the rise of the internet as an advertising platform, and the invent of TiVo, fewer and fewer ad agencies are successfully connecting with their viewers thru television commercials.

And yet, every year at this time, we have that one event where we can’t wait to sit down and watch a lot of commercials.

It doesn’t matter which teams are playing, because we’re mostly seeking entertainment during the timeouts and possession changes.

Parties are thrown. The world watches and wonders why work isn’t canceled the next day.

It’s the Super Bowl.

Sports Sell More Ad Revenue

As in a ridiculous amount of $.

Advertisers put lots of thought, effort, and money into these ads because they know we’re all watching. If you don’t believe me, check out this piece from SportsTVJobs (selected quote below):

Everything else I watch comes directly from my DVR menu, with my fast-forward finger cocked and ready. I’m a Mad Men junkie, but I’ve never watched a single commercial during any of their 65 episodes. Advertisers know this. [...] The difference: Sports can’t wait. [...] And in a nutshell, I have just explained the future for those seeking careers in sports television. Sports is the last bastion for advertisers to get in your head

- Brian Clapp, SportsTVJobs.com

In a stumbling economy where TV ads are becoming less relevant, sportscasts still turn as great a profit as ever. By contrast, news organizations in many places are financially forced to lay off their personnel or pay them less – many times sadly leading to a decline in perceived quality.

It’s strange because the reason we watch more sports ads is the same reason we don’t watch the ads during other shows. Just as technology has allowed us to skip ads online or by recording a show to watch later, Twitter, Facebook, and other websites have forced us to watch sporting events as they unfold.

To prove my point, I’m here included a photo spoiler of the London 2012 Olympic gymnastic competitions. I hope you’ve already seen seen it.

London 2012 Olympic Coverage

This past summer’s London 2012 Olympic coverage on NBC was all the proof you really need of this. NBC decided to delay much of their coverage for primetime in the USA, which meant most events were aired several hours after the actually took place.

This 4-8 hours delay killed the ratings for the Olympics (not that airing events at 5am, local time, would have been any better).

It only takes a few seconds for the results of any Olympic event to be posted on Twitter – and even if you’re not on Twitter, you’re on facebook, or you’re overhearing the conversation of someone next to you, or getting an alert from your ESPN app, etc.

A New Trend Has Risen

It’s a cultural phenomenon. Spoilers used to come out with the 11pm news or the next day’s morning paper – easy to avoid if you tried. Today, so many of us are watching sports with a second screen device – and spouting our thoughts live on our favorite social platform with zero regard for spoiler-free content.

That’s an awesome enhancement if you’re watching live too – but if you planed on watching later and the ending is already spoiled, it takes away all the fun of watching it, which means you won’t do that.

FACT: If you watch it live, the commercials are unskip-able. If you don’t see them, you’ll at least hear them.

Same with the Super Bowl. If you watch it this year, you watch it live. It’s so strongly assumed that on Monday morning your coworkers don’t care in the least if they spoil it for you – so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy and a live cultural event…all at the same time.

It Doesn’t Matter if It’s the Super Bowl

Fox Sports has a reported $6 billion dollar deal on the table for the next 25 years of broadcast rights for the Los Angeles Dodgers. Yes, the very same Dodgers that didn’t win the NL West, the Wildcard or the World Series since 1988. [...] Because they know advertisers will pay top dollar to air commercials that people will actually sit through

- Brian Clapp, SportsTVJobs.com

I refer to Brian Clapp’s article once again because he makes a good point: the popularity of the team or event doesn’t really matter when you think about it. It does to a certain extent of course. You won’t find ad slots for a Dodgers game that cost as much as the ones in tonight’s match-up – but either presentation still has a captive audience.

Furthermore, there is probably a greater percentage of people in the Los Angeles market that care about the Dodgers than about the San Francisco 49ers and Baltimore Ravens combined. So the truth boils down to the fact that you’ll always find a local audience for the professional local teams – even if they’re consistently below .500 (half of them are). Ad agencies can work with that (and love doing so!).

Profit to Be Made: A Never-Ending Cycle

Entire networks have grown up out of this truism. There are the big ones like the ESPN family, Big Ten Network, MLB Network, NFL Network, Golf Channel, etc. but there are also the more regional stations. Fox Sports (FSN), ROOT Sports, MASN, NESN – just to name a few.

Despite their proliferation, these are also some of the more profitable networks – and tend to be one of the big reasons people continue to pay so much for cable TV packages in an age where most of the episodic TV programs are free on Hulu the very next day.

To keep people tuning in, the quality of the broadcast has to be high. Thus, sports programing was one of the earlier adopters of full HD broadcasting because its popularity and profit margins justified the investments. You’ll also tend to find better and higher paid crews in live sports than in live news. It’s generally accepted that one of the best slots on your resume is the one with the letters ‘ESPN’ in it.

Even the commercials are better produced, due not only to solid crews, but also more work put in during the conceptual stages. You’re more likely to be entertained by sports ads because they are designed with entertainment in mind. Relating the brand to the sport is also popular, but only because the advertiser can afford to dedicate the production of the entire commercial to that one targeted audience (“fans of [insert team or sport name]“).

Hiring the best crews and showing better content leads to better broadcasts, which keeps more people tuning in, which leads to more ad revenue, … and of course this cycle repeats itself over and over.

Whether the Super Bowl, Dodgers game, Olympic gymnastics or speed skating. It’s all the same basic trends, principles, and economics at work.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

Although I shared our top 6 posts by number of readers yesterday, some of the best content from the past year didn’t make the list. So, here are the six best posts of 2012, in my opinion.

The past year was one of great growth here at BrendanShick.com. As we saw our readership increase several fold during the past 12 months, many of these articles will be completely new to more recent subscribers, hence why they’ve had fewer hits.

1. The “Illusion of Movement Shot:” How to Make a Simple Shot Better in a Pinch [Read Article]

This post is almost exactly one year old now, but upon rereading it, I think it’s one of my best posts to date. The mere concept is profound and helpful, certainly compared to some of the lies you may have been exposed to in film school.

3. How to Watch Star Wars: The Merits of Machete Order [Read Article]

This isn’t a great post so much as it’s a revolutionary concept – and I can’t take any credit for the latter. I simply summed up and added my thoughts to the now famous “Machete Order” originally posted on nomachetejuggling.com. If you’re a Star Wars fan on any level, this is absolutely the single most life-changing thing you’ve ever find on the internet (besides cats).

5. Finding the Right Freelancer: 3 Points of Consideration When Hiring [Read Article]

If you’re a client or hiring manager who’s ever been disappointed with a freelance worker you’ve hired, this is some short food for thought (from the perspective of a quality freelancer) for getting better work out of hires in the future.

Be sure to also check out yesterday’s 6 Most Popular Posts of 2012 [People's Choice].

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

Not surprisingly, last year’s top posts focused on some of the biggest film releases and news of 2012 – including one that I helped helm. So, here’s a look at the best of the best – the most read posts from the past year in review are listed below.

1. Clarifying the News: Disney Buys Lucasfilm, Star Wars for $4 Billion [Read Article]

This was surely the biggest film news surprise of 2012 (besides the now apparent truth that 2012 [2009] isn’t historical fiction…).

Fortunately, I was involved in Disney’s conference call with investors when they announced the deal with plans to make new Star Wars films (the SpikeTV marathon I watch as I type this already seems incomplete). I cleared up some of the rumors with info from the conference call here.

2. “To Turn Back Time:“ Worthy Kickstarter Film Campaign [Read Article]

I spent most of my April working on a 40-minute short, which should be making the festival rounds this coming year. But the highlight of this post was the promotional video I made (DP / Editor / Interviewee) nine months ago for the film. The producers used this 5-minute featurette on story and crew to raise an additional $10,000 toward the production’s budget.

3. The Importance of Type (Three-part Series) [Part One, Part Two, Part Three]

This is actually not a post from last year at all (in fact, it dates back to the early day of this blog), but it was one of the most popular of the past year nonetheless. Although part one had the most traffic, you’re welcome to skip it as the latter two installments have the best content.

5. White Balance: Important Tips and Tricks Someone Forgot to Teach You [Read Article]

I’ll admit I’m a little embarrassed that this post made the list, because to be honest, I didn’t put a whole lot of time or thought into this one. I guess simple tips of the trade must just speak for themselves.

Check back tomorrow for our top 6 editor’s picks of the year.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

Video Round-Up is a semi-regular column where we share the best video links from around the web.

Huntington University Animation Department

First up, my alma mater has been unusually festive this year. Good ‘ol college mascot Norm the Forester has a present for you to get things started:

Wright 3rd Productions

Now that the tree is up, it’s time to start the caroling.

Although they aren’t officially affiliated with my alma mater, Wright 3rd Productions is certainly a longstanding ‘student group’ worth following (and hey, the college President is in this one, so how ‘unofficial’ can they really be?).

As is the case with most Christmas albums, this isn’t my favorite release from this group, but it’s still worth a look:

A Social Network Christmas (Igniter Media)

And, finally, if you’re looking for a traditional take on Christmas, Igniter Media has you covered. Wait a second…did I just call this a “traditional” take!? Oh, never mind.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

My commentary on the use of HFR in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) was posted last week, several hours before the public release of the film. Naturally, there were no audience reactions to include at the time.

Since the official US release last Friday most of the audience reaction I’ve heard has consisted of one of two things:

1) The 3D was pretty good, quite possibly the high frame rate helped.

-or-

2) The high frame rate was a disaster.

If you read my predictive post last week, you’ll recall that I cited #1 as a possibility.

Number two is interesting. Although many people have expressed their distaste of HFR since time unknown, proponents of HFR mostly passed us off as “traditionalists” – people who think 24 frames per second is the artistic way to shoot a film and are only unwilling to change out of some vague sense of nostalgia.

Put that way, it’s a rather highbrow stance – but it’s actually not the main complain I’m hearing from moviegoers. Among the demographic who didn’t like the 48 frames per second, the most common complain is something much different.

An overwhelming number of people are saying the sense of heightened reality made the sets, make-up and costumes look cheesy, cheap, and cartoonish. This is an interesting development because it doesn’t at all match what the proponents of HFR said the nay-sayers would dislike.

On a high budget production like, The Hobbit, it’s unlikely that the film was stingy with the art department budget. Nor do I think that the designers slacked off while working on such a coveted property. So, if we’re truly left to blame those complaints on the frame rate, I feel sorry for the designers who have poured their heart and soul into the project only to hear a complaint about their work based on something completely beyond their control (frame rates are of course an executive decision made by a completely different department).

I’m looking for other opinions on this, so, if you’ve already seen The Hobbit, take a moment to share what you thought in the comments below.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

If you’ve been visiting the site for a while, you’ll recall one of my more viral posts of the year, Why 3D is Destroying Movies.

That article focused partly on the technological hurdles that cinematographers face when shooting a film destined for 3D and 2D formats – hurdles they often fail to realize exist.

With nearly every possible combination of the terms digital, IMAX, 2D, 3D, HFR, and non-HFR, Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) is being released in more formats than any other film ever made. It’s also introducing a new variable that, should it become more mainstream, would cause a similar set of cinematographic problems.

“HFR” is short-hand marketer-speak for “high frame rate.” But it affects other variables that the cinematographer should be intimately controlling as well.

The so dubbed HFR is the newcomer to the scene – and has been misunderstood even by many of my industry friends let alone the average moviegoer – [insert faux 'spoiler alert'] it’s not just about the framerate.

So, here’s a look at what HFR really does to your image straight from a cinematographer’s mouth…errr…pen…err…whatever.

HFR Defined

For the past several decades, almost every film has been released in 24 frames per second – that is 24 individual still images captured and played back in sequence every second to create the illusion of movement. The idea is that you can play film at a faster or slower speed to create a smoother or less smooth image. 24 fps [frames per second] has become a sort of standard to keep the industry consistent.

But it’s not that simple. In the television world, the standard is 25 fps with PAL (used in Europe and others) and 30 fps with NTSC (primarily in the USA). Early digital cameras and many consumer level cameras have also adopted these standards instead of 24 fps. In fact, just a few years ago, professionals would spend thousands of dollars more on a 24 fps camera even if there was an identical version using 30 fps for thousands less. So there have been competing standards for some time.

Fanboys of 24 fps seem to think it’s better for artistic reasons. A small minority of filmmakers (notably Lord of the Rings and Hobbit director Peter Jackson as well as producer/director James Cameron) have recently been pushing for a move towards higher frame rates because of the smoother motion it allows.

Their argument is that 24 fps was adopted as a standard in the early years (about the same time we added sound to film) as an economical advantage. It was fast enough to allow for persistence of vision, but slow enough to use a minimum of expensive film stock. Today, with digital technology, the savings are much less significant.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that’s the only consideration.

Myth: You can convert 48 fps back to 24 fps if you don’t like HFR

This is a rumor widely perpetuated by the proponents of HFR to comfort the 24 fps “purists” – and it’s exactly what Peter Jackson and Warner Bros. are doing with the non-HFR release of The Hobbit. The claim is that since 48 is exactly twice as many frames as 24, you can shoot 48 frames per second, then throw out half those frames in the edit suite and it’s just as if you shot 24 fps in the first place.

It’s misleading at best. Let’s take a quick look at the process.

One of the variables the cinematographer gets to play with (besides shutter speed) is shutter angle. Shutter angle is a foreign concept to most people, but can roughly be equated to the photographer’s equivalent: shutter speed.

Shutter Speed vs. Shutter Angle

When a photographer snaps a photo, the shutter opens for a set amount of time to expose the image. This is typically measured as a fraction of a second, but can be several seconds in darker conditions or to achieve certain effects. So, a camera might have several settings for shutter speed ranging from, say, 30 seconds to 1/2500 of a second.

A cinematographer deals with exposure a little differently. Instead of using fractions, cinematographers use “degrees” for their moving images. So shutter angle can range from 0 degrees to 360 degrees (confused yet? just think of a circle).

Nearly one hundred percent of the time, cinematographers shoot at a 180 degree shutter angle. This simply means that the length of the exposure for each frame is half the length of the frame. So, if you shoot at 24 fps with a 180 degree shutter angle, your shutter speed would be 1/48. Using that same shutter angle at 48 fps would give a shutter speed of 1/96.

What happens when you film something at 48 fps using a normal shutter angle (180 degrees) then convert back to 24 fps?

The exposure of each individual frame is still 1/96 of a second in both versions. This would be “correct” for the HFR clip, but would actually be a 90 degree shutter angle in the 24 fps clip. This leads to a jerky effect in the 24 fps version, much like watching a fight with a strobe light. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what 48 fps is supposed to do.

To compensate, the crew of The Hobbit is shooting everything at a 270 degree shutter angle in 48 fps, which doesn’t end up being “normal” in either format.

Simply put, one format doesn’t convert to the other as nicely as those voting for “progress” imply.

Mixed Reactions

The simple answer would be to just choose one format and stick with it. For years, we’ve done just that by adopting the 24 frames per second standard. While filmmakers will endlessly debate their “purist” (traditional 24 fps) vs. “progressive” (soap operatic look of 30 fps, 48 fps, or even higher) takes, we might as well look to the audience for answers.

A select few people have seen The Hobbit as of now. There are three main groups: those filmmakers who are directly attached to the project, a small group of viewers who saw a preview clip at Comic-con, and members of the media who saw the New Zealand première a couple of weeks ago.

(These are our only valid sources for comment on 48 fps questions because all the trailers and other marketing materials were released only in the 24 fps conversion)

Filmmakers attached to the project have obviously been heralding the new format as revolutionary. However, audiences at Comic-con were not so quick to give their endorsement. In fact, they were so widely and unanimously outspoken against the new “look” that Warner Bros. felt the pressure to widely scale back their initial 48 fps distribution plans. Jackson defended his choice, saying the new look takes about ten minutes to get used to – which is slightly longer than the length of the clip they showed.

The reviewers who saw the New Zealand première weren’t technically allowed to talk about their screening until last week due to the typical embargo period studios place between the screening and the time the press is actually allowed to write about it.

This group had mixed reviews on the 48 fps, although some skepticism is much warranted here as many of the reviewers broke the embargo rules and published early – which naturally could bring unsightly consequences if they didn’t pander to the glowing review of the new look that Warner Bros. and Jackson wanted them to publish.

The Unknown Could be a Plus Side…

One of Jackson’s biggest and potentially most exciting claims is that the HFR actually improves the 3D in the film – making it smoother and less nausea-inducing.

As I don’t shoot 3D features myself, I haven’t done any sort of extensive testing to confirm or rebuttal this, but it will be interesting to hear a wide-spread audience take on this possibility in the weeks to come. There is a definite need for something like that if the 3D craze is to continue.

…But Keep a Healthy Skepticism

Because that is really only a niché use of high-frame rate technology – and using it for any other reason (other that to convert to slow motion) is really an abuse of the technology by someone who doesn’t truly know its purpose. This includes (unfortunately) using it for 2D cuts of films that are also released in 3D (if you haven’t already, see that link to “Why 3D is Destroying Movies” for more on how releasing any film in both formats is inherently a problem).

That said, one of my biggest concerns is that only two big-name film directors have really signed onto this concept at all. Even the studios, who love to turn any tech upgrade into a new market thru clever branding, don’t seem that thrilled.

James Cameron has pushed for a move to a 48 fps (or higher) standard for years now. Peter Jackson has joined the bandwagon more recently, after early tests with The Hobbit convinced him it was feasible. Other than that, no one is using or planning to use HFR in a feature film.

The fact that Cameron has found only one person in support of his push after all these years should be a major red flag. He’s well-known colloquially as perhaps the greatest tech wizard in Hollywood. When he speaks, you’d expect more people to listen if his proposed idea has much merit – and this is exactly what happened with immediacy and great effect right after he spearheaded 3D filmmaking with his release of Avatar (2009).

Maybe this is part of the problem (brief clip starts at 9:37 – transcript quoted below):

Well I got so desperate on Terminator 2 trying to shorten that film to a manageable length [...] I said ‘Wait a minute, do we really need all these frames? If we just took out one frame every second for the entire film, we’d shorten the film by a couple a minutes. Let’s just do it as a test. We’ll take a reel and we’ll take out one frame in every 24.’ And the editors looked at me like I was nuts. [...] We took out one frame in every 24 and it was a mess! There were jerks, there were things, there were cuts in the wrong places. You totally saw it, and it just didn’t work. Every one of those individual frames was important. Once you know that as an editor, now you get scared for a while.

James Cameron, “The Cutting Edge”

Keep in mind this was back in the day of actual film stock. So, the reason the editors gave that look probably had something to do with the fact that they literally had to make two physical cuts and a splice every second for an entire reel of film, just to prove to Cameron what they and everyone else already knew – it wasn’t going to work. The ‘idea’ fundamentally destroys the concept of persistence of vision in which moving pictures are based.

Granted that was decades ago, but people still remember it. Given an anecdotal tale like this, it’s not surprising that only one director (and a relatively recent one at that) has joined Cameron in his most recent quest to improve persistence of vision in our theaters by playing with frames once again.

You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

In full disclosure, I am a 24 fps purist much like I’m a 2D purist. However, in both cases, you can tell I completely see the merit of applying these newer technologies to certain niché applications.

The problem with 48 fps is that it only seems to help with 3D acquisition at best and is inherently incompatible with the idea of releasing a 24 fps master, despite what you may have heard to the contrary.

So, filmmakers and cinematographers should be ready to choose one format and stick with it for release (otherwise, they’re creating a similar evil to what pan and scan once was before its thankful demise a decade ago). Despite what studios today are asking of them, they can’t have their cake and eat it too.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

You missed something important.

During The Dark Knight Rises (2012) theatrical run, you didn’t catch the real importance of Catwoman’s appearance in the film.

What follows is a character analysis to give you a dissenting take on her place in Nolan’s Batman universe – just in time to compare against the Blu-Ray and DVD release.

In this part, we’ll cover some poorer interpretations and what doesn’t work about them. In part two, we’ll take a look at the more subtle interpretation – the part I think most people missed the first time they saw the film.

(Note: Should you have still not seen the film, the rest of this post is SPOILER HEAVY. Do not continue.)

It Was All Lost in the Rumors…

If you’re like me, you avoided all the rumors your could in the lead up to The Dark Knight Rises hoping to stay spoiler-free.

However, you probably still heard the more prevalent ones. Before names were even announced, it was known that Warner Bros was casting for two female characters,

…A Love Interest and a Villain…

It was later announced that Anne Hathaway was cast as Selina Kyle and Marion Cotillard as Wayne Enterprises board member Miranda Tate. Note the lack of specificity in these roles.

Much of the public naturally took the official announcement to an extreme that wasn’t warranted.

We were left to believe that Selina Kyle was intended to be Catwoman (thus the villain), which left the obvious conclusion that Miranda Tate was the love interest. Even on first viewing, this seems to be the case while watching the first two-thirds of the film.

Yet, Cotillard is not listed as Talia. Hathaway is not listed as Catwoman.

This fact was quickly lost in the hype; however, it was important that no one from Warner Bros. call out the obvious misunderstanding before the film’s release. Hiding Tate’s true identity preserves a double twist in the ending, as does hiding the fact that Kyle is actually the real love interest. The fans also are a lot more hyped to see “Catwoman” than the relative no-name “Selina Kyle.”

Selina Kyle ≠ Catwoman, Per Se

Unfortunately, few have noticed that Hathaway’s character is never referred to as Catwoman.

Within the context of the film, the character is always called Selina Kyle in person and simply “the Cat” in newspaper clippings. This, along with other minor details of the character, is consistent with the early comic book appearances.

Likewise, to my knowledge, Warner Bros. never officially referred to the character as Catwoman, always opting for Selina Kyle instead (merchandising campaigns and Hathaway’s personal comments to the press not-withstanding).

So, it’s simple to conclude that Selina Kyle’s role is not meant to be taken directly as Catwoman, or even that of a villain.

Good? Bad? Or Misunderstood?

It’s often hard to qualify Nolan’s characters to begin with because they are always so dynamic. The perceived heroes are often not actually any better than the perceived villains.

(e.g. Who’s responsible for the events of The Dark Knight (2008), Batman or the Joker? Who’s the villain in Inception (2010) if the bad guys are all in Cobb’s mind and he keeps breaking all his own rules?)

Each character he writes has a healthy dose of positive and negative traits, regardless of alignment. We’re led to feel positive emotions toward the character(s) who are performing the worst actions – sometimes this is even the protagonist.

Just to name a few examples less likely to come to mind, we’re rooting for Cobb in Following (1998), Detective Dormer in Insomnia (2002), oh, and don’t forget Batman, the quintessential lawless vigilante.

Selina Kyle is no exception

It’s not hard to find bad qualities in a jewel thief and she’s proven an apt one in her very first scene.

So, she’s one of the bad guys, right?

The rest of the film doesn’t support this interpretation very well at all. In the last five minutes of montage, we get to see nearly every character’s story neatly wrapped up. The two for whom we feel happiest are Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle. In fact, these are arguably the only two who are actually happy at all, unless you count Alfred’s vicarious happiness – directed toward them as well.

On a surface level analysis (which I will challenge in part two), Bruce spends most of his scenes with Selina vetting her intentions for wanting “the clean slate” – which is an archetypical metaphor as much as it is a mythical computer program. He only provides her with this dream at the end because he deems those intentions worthy and longstanding.

So the question is raised: does Selina Kyle’s motivation change over the course of the film? Or has her character always hated the idea of being a jewel thief at her core? That is, do her intentions change, or do her circumstances change?

I’ll leave that debate for the comments. Check back tomorrow for what we’re still missing in Part Two.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

“Theater Avoids Ticket Tax By Selling Admission Carrots”

If you’re following me on LinkedIn, then you’ve already seen this.

In case you’re not – yes, you did read that correctly, “Theater Avoids Ticket Tax By Selling Admission Carrots.”

I figured there must be something more to this headline than the obvious, but in reality it was a just a very succinct article about…exactly what you’d expect. It’s worth the quick read to hear the PR rep’s spin on the idea.

Future Camera Assistants Take Note!

Again, I already posted this on LinkedIn, but it bears repeating to my blog audience that industry blogger Evan Luzi recently wrapped up a great three-part series on how to slate properly on The Black and Blue. If you’re new to the idea of slating, I’d highly recommend at least parts one and two – but if you have time for just one, go for part two.

Also, whether you’re a camera assistant, you work with one, or you’re just now studying to become one, The Black and Blue is a must-follow industry blog in its own right.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Submitted for Oscar Consideration

Warner Bros has started their campaign to push The Dark Knight Rises (2012) into serious Oscar contention by, not surprisingly, submitting it for consideration in every category it’s eligible for.

Will it receive most of these nominations? Probably. Will it win many of them? That’s yet to be seen. The Dark Knight (2008) was probably deserving of more awards that TDKR, but only received two from the Academy back in 2009. Batman Begins (2005) got a single nomination and didn’t win.

However, there is some solid precedence for the Academy rewarding the final film in a trilogy in exchange for snubbing its prequels. Take The Lord of the Rings trilogy for instance. The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Two Towers (2002), and The Return of the King (2003) won in 4, 2 and 11 categories respectively. Eleven wins ties The Return of the King for the all-time record, despite many feeling that the first two installments would have been more deserving of that title.

The Dark Knight Rises DVD/Blu-Ray release on December 4th is quickly approaching and both the single film and trilogy box set are currently available for pre-order.

List of All-time Most Popular Redbox Rentals

Redbox released an intriguing list of the all-time most popular rentals from their kiosks. Inside Redbox ran the results:

10. Rango
9. The Proposal
8. Zookeeper
7. Bridesmaids
6. Salt
5. Jack and Jill
4. 21 Jump Street
3. Grown Ups
2. Bad Teacher
1. Just Go With It

(Source: Inside Redbox)

Not only is there a distinct lack of action/adventure and critically acclaimed material on this list, Inside Redbox claims the average Rotten Tomatoes score of this selection is a mere 27%. Maybe Redbox customers are just looking for a last minute movie night instead of more “serious” fare?

I myself have opted to only see 4 of the ten (two of which I rented at Redbox despite not being a super frequent customer). One (Rango) made it onto my Top 10 List from last year. Each of other three fell short for me in some capacity.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

Earlier this week we took a look at and tried to debunk some of the rumors surrounding the Oct. 30th Disney/LucasFilm buyout.

Taking things a step further, I thought it would be fun to publicize my own director shortlist. These are my personal choices for who I’d like to see given a shot at Episode VII.

Naturally, if I actually had a say in that decision making process, I’d be under the strictest NDA known to man and wouldn’t be writing this post at all. So don’t blame me if none of these choices gets the job.

J.J. Abrams

Known for: Star Trek (2009), Super 8 (2011), Mission: Impossible III (2006), various tv shows

Pros:

J.J. Abrams is my first choice – and the list of reasons is not a small one. He’s already well acquainted with the sci-fi genre (Star Trek, Super 8) and even more-so with action/adventure flicks (add Mission Impossible III to the mix).

I should issue a disclaimer here: I’m not a J.J. Abrams fanboy to the extent that many people are these days – but he does seem like one of two natural choices to helm the future of the franchise for a number of reasons.

I was first enamored by Abrams after listening to his director’s commentary on the DVD release of Star Trek (one of the better commentary tracks I’ve heard – and I am a connoisseur of such things). He talks profusely about how his goal was to take Star Trek and make it more like Star Wars. He goes into much detail about what he means by this and how he was able to achieve it, but in simple terms he views Star Wars as the more accessible franchise for most audiences.

Watching the movie scene-for-scene while he describes which scenes were inspired by Star Wars makes it clear that he understands why Star Wars works. Interestingly enough, he’s so subtle about the whole thing that while watching Star Trek for the first time, you’d never notice these parallels, but after listening to the commentary track, they are so obvious that you can’t unsee them.

Disney would afford Abrams the freedom to guide the franchise without too much studio interference (much like their success with the Pixar/Marvel/Avengers acquisitions). Abrams also has already demonstrated a respect for the property along with the knowledge and care for it to show that this trust is warranted. Note his recent joint ventures with Steven Spielberg as well, who was also heavily influential to George Lucas’s work on the original 6 films.

Cons:

Abrams is already heavily involved in the Star Trek reboots, thus possibly deemed, “unavailable” to take on something this large – at least in a directorial role. Some also argue he’s too well established to take on such a risky proposition as a Star Wars continuation. However, I can’t say either of these are insurmountable challenges should Disney decide he’s the man for the job. Hence, he remains at the top of my list.

Andrew Stanton

Known for: John Carter (2012), WALL-E (2008), Finding Nemo (2003)

Pros:

Andrew Stanton and counterpart Brad Bird have both been mentioned in rumors surrounding directorial choices for the continuing saga, and for obvious reasons. Both directors are historically known as major names in feature animation. Between the two of them, they’ve directed basically all the best Pixar releases.

Having mastered what was considered the best in 3D computer animation over the past decade, both filmmakers branched out by making their feature live action debuts this past year – Bird with Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (2011) and Stanton with Disney’s John Carter (2012)

Like Abrams, the two are established filmmakers, but not in the live action realm per se, so “being established” doesn’t work against them in the same way it does Abrams.

Stanton and Bird already have a substantial relationships with Disney now that it owns Pixar. For better or worse, you can now add Stanton’s John Carter to that list.

I have the utmost respect for both of these directors; however, I have a clear reason for picking Stanton over Bird in this instance. First, despite popular and critical opinion, I believe that John Carter demonstrated a smoother transition from the animated world to the live action world than Bird’s entry into the Mission: Impossible franchise.

Therefore, I’m more interested in seeing Stanton risk making this transition permanent, while I’d be very content to see Bird continue his original track record by making a lot more awesome Pixar movies. John Carter also included a lot heavier use and mastery of CGI. Admittedly, this would be necessary to helm a Star Wars film in today’s world, even assuming the use of real-world sets and environments over the greenscreen-laiden style of the prequel trilogy.

This brings me to the second reason for choosing Stanton. WALL-E and John Carter are both Disney films of the right genre. Coincidentally, they are probably also my two favorite Stanton films of all time.

Or maybe that’s not a coincidence? Perhaps Stanton just has an intimate knowledge of how to tell this sort of story and can do it again with Star Wars VII-IX.

Frankly, John Carter had a rash of blatantly obvious Star Wars homages. It’s one of the things I love about the film. I realize that this is partly unfair to say considering Edgar Rice Burroughs’s source material not only predates, but was even a key inspiration for Lucas’s Star Wars scripts. However, consider even the specifics of the settings and imagery that Stanton commands here – that didn’t come from a book at all, but rather from the minds of two like-minded filmmakers.

(To cite two particular scenes in a spoiler-free way consider the Lars homestead from A New Hope vs. you-know-which-flashback-scene in John Carter – also – the gladiator style arena battle in Attack of the Clones vs. the Thark arena in John Carter)

Cons:

The first for me is that there won’t be time for anymore John Carter sequels, at least from the same director – but this probably won’t happen anyway.

Which is the cause of the real reason Stanton likely won’t get the job: As John Carter is considered one of the largest financial disasters in Disney’s recent history, Disney won’t feel compelled to hand Stanton the keys to another $300 million dollar picture like Star Wars VII. Particularly since it’s already a 4 billion dollar investment on their part. The fanboys would go nuts (in a bad way) from the start!

Now I naturally disagree or Stanton wouldn’t have made my list. I wasn’t confused by the characters or complex plot lines/story/environments of John Carter in the least (and I certainly did my part to help make it a financial success). I think the criticisms here, which I would label unfair, are actually quite similar to the criticisms historically leveled against Star Wars films, which are also unfair. That makes this director a natural fit in my book.

Christopher Nolan

Known for: Memento (2000), Insomnia (2002), The Prestige (2006), Inception (2010), The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005, 2008, 2012)

Pros:

According to publicly available knowledge, Nolan hasn’t committed to his next directorial gig yet. He’s on this list because, among directors active in the business today, he’s the probably the one I most respect.

In fact, I’ve often said he’s a sort of combination between Star Wars creator/writer/executive producer/director, George Lucas, and series consultant Steven Spielberg.

The two are of course widely respected for their individual accomplishments and were consultants on practically all of one another’s projects to some extent – to the point where it would be hard to imagine an idea that one of them brought to the screen without the influence of the other.

Nolan evokes the same sense of myth and clever storytelling the two were able to accomplish together, yet combines it into one package.

Disney would need to fork over some cash to get him to jump ship from Warner Bros., but that amount would look small compared the upfront $4 billion investment.

Cons:

Unfortunately, Nolan is widely regarded (probably fairly) as not the right guy for the job. I found this in Forrest Wickman’s cleverly written, but not so cleverly titled, article “Christopher Nolan Should Not Direct Star Wars“:

Struggling with the mysterious loss of his wife Mara Jade (played in flashback by Marion Cotillard), a middle-aged Luke Skywalker (Christian Bale) has found himself in a pained exile back on Tatooine. We gradually piece together that after losing an internal struggle with his anger, hate, and suffering, Skywalker was labeled a potential Sith [...] and thrown out [of the Jedi order...]. This all leads to [...] a startling revelation: As the brass in Hans Zimmer’s score swells, we learn that it was Skywalker who accidentally sabered Mara Jade; he then used a Jedi Mind Trick on himself to wipe the memory. As Skywalker must decide whether to keep this memory [...] we cut to black.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

There’s a certain way stories like this work:

(1) You hear about a breaking film news story as it’s unfolding and feel obligated to post about it. (2) All the other sites are already aiming to be first. Every. Single. One. You quickly feel less obligation to add to the clutter. (3) A week or two passes and you’ve been reading all the follow up stories, noting the misleading rumors, confusing explanations, and flat out misinformation. You think – hmmm, I heard everything straight from the source a week ago. Let’s get people back to reality!

And so, two weeks later, you end up with your own post adding to the overload anyway. Enjoy!

What Makes This More Informative Than What You’ve Already Heard?

In case you somehow haven’t heard, George Lucas recently sold his independent, San Francisco-based, LucasFilm to Disney to the tune of $4 billion dollars. Among a long line of other assets, this includes most of the rights to the Star Wars franchise as well as some to Indiana Jones (see below).

I feel qualified to share about this for two reasons: First, I’ve been an ardent Star Wars fan since the second grade. Having seen the movies countless times (my favorite films in cinema history) and making a respectable foray into the Expanded Universe as well as the self-dubbed “collector’s universe,” Star Wars is the reason I got into the industry in the first place – so I’ve got some odd knowledge others don’t know about the situation. (Check out how I’ve clearly thought too much about how to expose my future children to the saga)

Second, a well-placed friend and industry contact in the Bay Area alerted me to the news moments after it broke. Thus, we were able to join the conference call between Disney’s board members and investors when few people knew yet that anything was happening at all.

The timeline breaks down like this (all times approximate, PST unless noted):

1:15 PM: Phone call from source. I begrudgingly put off my already overdue Taco Bell run and answer.

1:16 PM: I try to recall if April Fools Day falls on Oct 30 this year. It doesn’t.

1:17 PM: Phone call continues, we try to determine validity of announcement. Although everyone is reporting it without question, press release on Disney’s site is still too recent to rule out a prank/hack.

1:30 PM: Source discovers Disney will be holding conference call at 4:30 PM EST to inform investors.

1:30:01 PM: I check the time.

1:30:02 PM: “Well that’s right now…”

1:30:32 PM: We join the call.

I finally leave for Taco Bell while still listening to the call. I get my free World Series “Steal a Base, #StealATaco” (two good things from San Francisco in one post!) taco and simultaneously become one of those stuck up businessmen who orders fast food while they’re on the phone. Thus, two things I never expected to happen happened – and on the same day.

What Was Said That You Probably Haven’t Heard

Quite a bit actually. That is when you consider the specifics of how it was said.

Although most creative types probably viewed the conversation as just a bunch of rich people talking about what was happening to boring investments numbers, I still feel that this call was overall the best source of information on the news.

Don’t worry, I’ve kindly removed the references (one at least every two sentences) to similarities between the 2009 acquisition of Marvel and how well that was capitalized on by Disney. That being said, here are some of the more interesting points from the Q&A session with shareholders:

What are the plans for future films?

“Part of what we’re buying [along with the company...] is a pretty extensive & detailed treatment that George has already written for the next three movies. That would be VII, VIII, and IX in the overall arc.” (slated for release roughly every 2-3 years starting in 2015 and an additional film every 2 years after IX). George Lucas will be on board as a creative consultant for at least the next three.

Hardcore fans of the saga will know that Lucas did in fact write treatments for all nine originally-planned films long ago (despite famously later saying he’d stop with just the first six – “there are no seven, eight, and nine”).

Armed with this knowledge, it’s rather likely that the material Disney is referring to here was written before the prequel trilogy was actually scripted and before much of the Expanded Universe was conceived of. Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), even commented on these sequels multiple times during press tours for the 1983 release of Return of the Jedi (watch from 3:10-4:10):

It was obvious what these treatments were to any hardcore fan listening to the conference call. It should not come as a surprise to fans who wanted an adaptation of the Thrawn novel trilogy that this will be something different. That was not something Lucas would have been able to draw from for this, as these treatments were his original work, predating much of the EU.

That being said, some minor overlap or even full film adaptations of certain EU novels after IX is released would not be out of the question. Likewise, it doesn’t necessarily mean LucasFilm needs to remove much, or any, post-ROTJ canon as some have worriedly suggested.

As LucasFilm (now Disney) also owned the Indiana Jones franchise, are there any plans to capitalize on this part of the acquisition?

Short answer, no. But it was a great question.

Disney executives commented that they’re huge fans of the franchise. Yet, on paper, they doesn’t see as much value to this because the distribution rights are still owned by Paramount Pictures, not Disney/LucasFilm. Essentially, buying out that contract would cut into profit margins too much to make future Indy films worth the risk financially.

I have a feeling this evaluation could change in the future though, as it didn’t sound like Disney had thought too much about the possibility, not having “factored it into the valuation” of the acquisition (Star Wars having enough market potential to seal the deal on its own). I wouldn’t hold your breath though.

Why did George choose to sell now instead of, say, several years down the line?

Disney executives did “not want to put words in George’s mouth” but did cite the long established fact that Lucas was already planning to transition out of his leadership roles at the company and “pass the torch.” This, of course, mirrors exactly things Lucas has already said.

What will happen to ILM?

Disney thinks they’ve always done great work as an industry leader. As an asset of LucasFilm, ownership is obviously transferred under the deal, but they plan to leave them operating as is, largely untouched. In essence, Disney views them as a separate entity. Naturally, this adds a lot of value to the deal despite getting limited press.

Off to the Rumor Mill

So there you have it: some insight into what Disney actually said, in what context they said it, and a little backstory into what it really meant. Plus a few tidbits on other things that got lost in the hype directly surrounding the Star Wars sequels.

Beyond that, it’s all still rumors regarding, storylines, writers, directors, and cast members for the future additions to the saga. I’ll save my thoughts on that for another time.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

UPDATE: It appears Al Jazeera English is not carrying the debate tonight. You can watch the live coverage from 9pm-10:30pm on RT America.

I don’t like getting into politics anymore than the next guy, but unfortunately broadcasting and politics mix once every four years in the form of …drumroll…Presidential debates.

The three Presidential debates between Democratic incumbent Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney were naturally heavily publicized and viewed by a huge number of potential voters. However, President Obama actually has around 150 challengers if you include third party candidates and recognized write-in candidates. They have once again received considerably less press.

Third parties have been steadily gaining ground in US elections over the past several years, but many say voting for one is a wasted vote since they are unlikely to grab even a single electoral college vote – to which Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson offered the impassioned plea in the third party debate two weeks ago: “Wasting your vote is voting for somebody you don’t believe in. That’s wasting your vote.”

Although few know about it, there will be a second debate between two of these candidates tonight at 9pm (originally scheduled for last Tuesday, moved because of Hurricane Sandy).

Since it probably won’t be aired on your local television channels, you’ll may need to find a less-biased source of your choice online (RT, and Free and Equal will have it for sure – Al Jazeera, CSPAN and others also picked up the last one) to watch live. All responsible voters are encouraged to do so. Jill Stein (Grn) and Gary Johnson (Lib.) will be present.

You can also watch the previous debate between four challengers (Jill Stein, Green Party; Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party; Virgil Goode, Constitution Party; & Rocky Anderson, Justice Party), embedded in its entirety below:

This pair of third party debates are the only two debates to which all the candidates were actually invited (Jill Stein tried to attend one of the other debates, but was instead bound to a chair while Obama and Romney fought it out). Romney and Obama chose not to attend either one.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

2006 World Series at Comerica Park (Photo Credit: Kevin Ward)

2006 World Series at Comerica Park (Photo Credit: Kevin Ward) It’s October and that means post-season baseball, including currently, the 2012 World Series.

Tens of thousands of fans will be packing Comerica Park as was the case at AT&T Park: those who are lucky enough to get tickets for the Detroit Tigers and San Francisco Giants match-up.

Many more will be tuning in to the live television broadcast on FOX. Certainly that’s not the same as taking in a game in person, but the added camera angles and replays certainly add some benefits.

As a sports broadcasting professional myself, I thought this might be a good time to share a little insight into what it takes to put on a broadcast like this.

Different networks and stadiums obviously necessitate slightly different setups. The crew needs of ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball looks totally different than say that of the American Legion World Series on ESPN3. Having worked in the past with people who’ve worked on one or the other, obviously the main difference is one of scale.

MLB broadcasts easily push the number of cameras to double digits. Other broadcasts use only four or five. Regardless, the concepts behind-the-scenes are the same. It’s perhaps easier to learn about and understand these concepts by looking at the smaller scale productions and building from there.

The Five Camera Setup

If you watched the 2012 American Legion World Series or one of many minor league game broadcasts this past season, you were looking at a five camera setup. The coverage broke down something like this (parenthesis indicate cameras per location, assuming five total):

Located in the upper deck behind the backstop, this is the high home camera in PNC Park, home of the Pittsburgh Pirates. (Photo Credit: Brendan Shick)

High Home ( 1 )

Basic Setup: This is the camera situated behind home plate, usually in the upper deck (hence the moniker), but always at main level concourse height or above.

Function: The most important function of this camera is to follow the ball in play. A fielder must possess the ball to make an out, so having a camera dedicated to following the ball means you’ll never miss the most important action. It’s also easy to understand geography from this location. Viewers at home will never be confused where the ball is from this angle, so you can switch to it at any time without running the grammar of your cuts.

5+ Camera Setup: When you’ve got cameras to spare, you might want to put some extras behind the plate to cover other targets. A single shot from a lower angle along each foul line is desirable for replays on a close fair/foul call. Likewise, a camera even with the players’ eye-lines comes in handy for intimidating closeups of the pitcher or for reviewing close ball/strike calls – you’ll often see the extreme slo-mo cameras placed here. In more basic setups, a single high home can cover all of this.

Center field setup at a Major League Pittsburgh Pirates game. The batter’s eye can be seen in the left of this image. (Photo Credit: Brendan Shick)

Center Field ( 1-2 )

Basic Setup: Located just past the outfield wall and just beyond the edge of the batter’s eye (the big unobstructed green backdrop required in straight-away center field), a single center field camera may be manned or unmanned in a pinch.

Function: It’s from this angle that you get that classic baseball shot that you will see more than any other over the span of the broadcast – a basic two shot of pitcher and batter, with the catcher and umpire lurking in the background. Most pitches are seen from this angle. It’s also desirable to have this camera follow the batter as a play develops, providing a good alternate angle on any force or tag plays he encounters.

5+ Camera Setup: At the American Legion World Series, they actually opted to put their fifth camera out in center. While visiting PNC Park this past season, there were no less than four cameras placed in center field. So, clearly there’s plenty out here worth covering if you have some extra equipment. One typical angle for a second camera out here is essentially the same shot as the first, but zoomed in quite a bit more so that it’s effectively the batter’s closeup. This is a great angle to pull up the hitters stats in a lower third graphic – major league broadcasts do this to great effect.

Dugout/Concourse Cameras ( 2 )

Basic Setup: Here’s where things start to vary greatly depending on a variety of factors. You might see a camera placed in each team’s dugout, but which end of the dugout varies from park to park. Sometimes a small camera platform above or next to the dugout is used or the cameras are all the way back on the concourse (roughly straight behind first and third base).

If you have only five cameras to work with, choose one of these spots. Place one camera on the first base side and one on the third base side.

The third base concourse camera at PNC Park stands by with a beauty shot ready to go 30 minutes before a Tuesday evening broadcast. (Photo Credit: Brendan Shick)

Function(s): These cameras also provide a shot of the batter from the side. The camera facing the batter (third base for lefties and first base for righties) grabs this shot, either as a closeup for graphics or to show something specific that a commentator wishes to highlight. When a closeup is not necessary, a wider shot is used to show the batter from head-to-toe (great for replays showing the ball’s height thru the strike zone).

The camera facing the batter’s back is free to cover any baserunner(s). This means there’s a shot ready whenever there’s a stolen base, pick off, or at any other time the director feels the need to show the baserunner(s).

If there are no baserunners, this second camera typically finds a shot that will add something to the broadcast. Interesting fans, bullpen warmups, players in the field or dugout (especially ones the commentators are highlighting), or even beauty or bump shots are all valid options.

5+ Camera Setup: Of course, at the MLB level, there’s usually a camera in each dugout and at least one on each concourse. The concourse height is ideal in many situations because players (especially base coaches) block the action on the field from the dugout camera level. In contrast, the dugout camera is closer to the action and thus has the edge for certain shots.

Although it’s been more than a full season now, I often operated the wireless camera for the Ft. Wayne TinCaps broadcasts back in the day. (Photo Credit: Wendy Shick)

 Wireless (Roving) Cameras ( 0-1 )

Basic Setup: Being wireless, these cameras can go anywhere and everywhere in a hurry.

Functions: At my job with the Fort Wayne TinCaps, we opt for a wireless camera in part for the fan entertainment that happens on the field and in the stands between innings. This is fairly typical in many of the minor league cities, even though most other teams don’t have an on-air broadcast.

For the broadcast component, regardless of the level of play, this camera might capture a certain player on the field, shoot a postgame or pregame interview, or get interesting shots of the fan experience, whether it be the cheers following a home run, or the delicacies at a concession stand.

5+ Camera Setup: The drawbacks of price and relative signal reliability aside, this is the most versatile camera in the arsenal. When the budget allows, it don’t hurt to have several operators on wireless strategically placed around the park.

Easy Ways to Build on This Setup

Once you’ve got these first 5-6 cameras down, you’re doing pretty good. Again, this is the extent of many minor league and ESPN3 setups. They might add a unmanned camera (perhaps even a GoPro HD) in each dugout and bullpen for an occasional cutaway, but that’s typically it.

Even a major league broadcast is using these basic 5-6 cameras about 85% of the time. Obviously, they add some more angles to supplement this (think replay angles and extra beauty/bump shots – I’ll have more details on this in part two).

Ultimately, these are extras though – amazingly, you almost always get two angles of the relative action (regardless of what happens) from just the first six cameras.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

Anyone who has spent any amount of time pursuing a college degree is undoubtedly familiar with the phrase “School, sleep, friends. Pick two.” The implication is that there is only enough time in a 24-hour day to do so many things well. For many people, college is the first time they realize this. Combine that with all the time college students waste coming up with snappy catch phrases and the slogan is born…

I’ve heard a similar principle applied to freelance work – and it’s particularly important for the client or hiring manager to understand it before selecting, or even looking for, an applicant.

Quality, Speed, Price – Pick Two

Let’s use freelance video editing as a starting point. If you want to find the right person to tackle your project, you need to prioritize. You would like to have a quality product delivered on a short timeline at a low price, but the first step is learning to accept that you will likely only get two out of three.

It is important to realize this before making any decisions. Too often clients have a set budget and a set timeline. They hire the freelancer who promises quick results at a low price, only to find that the results are of such low quality that they can’t be used. That investment is now wasted.

Working under the assumption that quality work is important to any client, there are two paths of foresight that can prevent these disasters from happening. Here’s how to attract that freelancer who will give you a quality project you can actually use:

1. Increase the budget. Spending more money usually means better results. You can either find a better freelancer this way, buy a higher end package from the same freelancer, or encourage the same freelancer to prioritize your project and get it done sooner.
2. Allow a longer timeframe. If you’re on a budget and can’t spend more, allow more time for the project to be completed. Good freelancers are in too much demand to take a lowball offer from you if you’re asking for a quick turnaround. But if it’s a short project that doesn’t need completed for a few months, they’ll probably have a sufficient dry spell somewhere within that timeframe to tackle it. If they realize this, they might be willing to take a lower offer. Plan ahead!

From the Freelancer’s Point of View

Keep in mind. If you’re a high-quality freelancer in any field, you charge higher rates because you can. You also turn down lower paying jobs because you don’t have the time to handle them.

As with anything that’s in demand, if you want it sooner, it’s worth more on the market. So if you’re a client looking to hire, plan ahead. Don’t try to find a freelancer on the eve of your project deadline and expect them to work miracles – they might be able to, but it will probably cost extra.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

This April has certainly been quite the busy and eventful month. As alluded to in previous posts, it was not only the start of baseball season (and thus sports broadcasting), but was also the month in which I was heavily involved in principle photography for To Turn Back Time, a 40-minute independent film for which I was the DP.

Amazingly, I was able to do both without any significant conflict in shooting schedules, but it also left me with only about 4 days off during the entire month.

Quick Breakdown

And that makes the whole ordeal sound rather easy. As can be typical on lower budget independent films, some of our shooting days on To Turn Back Time ran upwards of 16 hours. That doesn’t include time spent afterwards planning out the next day (or sleeping, eating, etc.).

When you do the math, I’ve worked at least 80 hours every single week since mid-March just on these two projects alone. Apologies if the blogging has seemingly taken a back seat for the past few weeks…

Anyway, here are the details:

To Turn Back Time in the Can

We finally wrapped principle photography on To Turn Back Time early last Monday morning after roughly 10 non-consecutive shoot days.

I’m still not allowed to reveal all the details about the project that I’d like to, but you can anxiously await future material on the production both here and on the project’s website. As hinted at before, I will be posting to the Project Updates blog on the production’s site (somewhat more frequently now that my work towards the actual production has come largely to a close and I have more time to do so).

Update wise, the production successfully met their funding goal on Kickstarter and has finished filming. Postproduction should begin in earnest in the coming weeks.

New Broadcasting Frontiers

In other news, I was asked to direct the live broadcast of one of the Fort Wayne TinCaps’ home games. Typically, I run camera or replay. For those who don’t know broadcasting but do know baseball, this is kind of like bringing in the center fielder to pitch – he’s not really used to the position, but in some circumstances, you just have to go with it.

Fort Wayne isn’t a huge sports broadcast market, so when your everyday director can’t make it, you have to go with the next best thing – someone who’s been around the job for a while who (hopefully) can be quickly groomed into the new spot for the day.

I’ve always been told that either directing or serving as the TD for a live sports broadcast is the hardest job in the broadcast industry. By extension, baseball is generally thought of as one of the more difficult and unpredictable sports to air. So, naturally I had my work cut out for me!

I’d never directed a live baseball broadcast, so that’s where good instinct had to take over. In my case, my combined background in directing live news and operating cameras and control room equipment for live sports was the right fit to train and hone these instincts. If the director knows what angle every camera is supposed to cover and those operators do their jobs, the director’s job simply becomes keeping a level head, dealing assertively with whatever technical concerns stress the broadcast, paying attention to the game situations, and being definitive when making shot choices. The rest takes care of itself.

Thankfully, I was backed by a solid performance from the rest of the crew and we all made it through the game without any unusual problems.

Looking Ahead

From the “soon to come” list, expect a more official launch of the My Gear page soon, as well as updates to the Film Reel and Set Photos portions of the site.

My demo reel (HD) is over a year old now and I like to update it about that often so that potential clients and fans can always see what is possible with our latest gear packages and how we’ve been using those to help others accomplish their visions and goals on an everyday basis.

That being said, the summer season is already starting to fill up with projects and freelance gigs. Feel free to submit your proposal if you want one of the remaining spots. As with any freelance professional, clients always get the best results and availability from their hires when they book and plan months in advance.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

I may not have any kids yet, but I have recently discovered the answer to the most important parenting question of all time. That’s right, I’ve decided in what order to make my kids watch Star Wars.

The link above is an absolute must read in its entirety for anyone who is a fan of the series or has seen the series and cares about learning how to tell a story. Needless to say, there are plenty of major spoilers for all six films in the link above as well as in the quotes and content in the remainder of this post.

Merits of Machete Order

I first skimmed the article when I ran across it a few months ago because of its immense length. What I read made a ton of sense, so I came back and gave it a more thorough read later – and I was blown away by how much sense it made and how much better it made the series (which was already my all-time favorite). To summarize: Episodes IV, V, II, III, VI is the correct viewing order.

As a true Star Wars fan, I don’t agree with what the author says about the sub-parness of the newer editions and the prequel trilogy. All six films have their own merits and are worth watching and including as part of the Star Wars franchise. The author recognizes this in his post at times, but there are also long stretches where his rants don’t make it clear whether or not he truly believes it.

So, to be clear, I’m subscribing to the idea he presents at the end of the post: Episode I should be included with the Clone Wars film and tv series as an “Expanded Universe” type backstory. Contrary to popular belief, The Phantom Menace is not the worst film in the saga and it does add important information and backstory for anyone fully invested in the universe. However, there is no particular time that the viewer needs that information to understand any key plot points. It serves more of a curiosity than adding anything crucial to the main story arc. Much the same with the cartoons, books, Ewok movies, and other expanded universe content (although Episode I would rank over all of those).

Conclusion

There are plenty of other awesome points about how to enhance the viewing experience, tension, and overall story arc just by rearranging the films in a very unique order. He points out several things that I never really thought about (and not for lack of trying!).

“This order also preserves both twists. George Lucas knew that watching the films in Episode Order would remove the Vader twist, so he added the Palpatine twist to compensate.

[...]

Best of all, this order actually makes a particular tension in Return of the Jedi stronger.

Remember, we see in Episode V that Luke’s vision in the cave on [Dagobah] is that he turns into Darth Vader, then we find out Vader is his father. Then we watch Episodes II and III, in which his father turns to the dark side in order to protect his loved ones. After that we go back to VI, where eventually Luke confronts the Emperor.”

He goes on for several paragraphs to explain how the ROTJ tension is much higher this way, given the obvious strong parallels to ROTS. This makes the final film in the saga much better when viewed this way.

It’s simply amazing that anyone who has already seen all six films in the order they were released can clear their mind and make such a reasoned argument about how someone would feel when seeing them in a different order for the first time. I don’t think I will ever be able to introduce someone to the saga in a different way again.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

One of the biggest myths widely believed by newbie cinematographers and photographers is that it’s a good idea to white balance your camera off a white card placed near the subject. “Newbie” can mean a variety of things here.

I’ve met a great variety of people, some with graduate degrees in cinematography, perpetuating this rumor (and yes, sometimes I’m even guilty of such). Although it’s good and simple beginner advice, there’s a lot more to the story.

The ‘white card’ tip is only partly true and, quite frankly, is an extremely simplified version of the truth that is probably partly perpetuated by people who don’t feel like spending the time to explain the full story to you.

Assuming you read on, I’m about to put an end to that as best I can.

#1 – The card shouldn’t be white, it should be grey

The term ‘white balance’ is a bit of a misnomer. Actually, it is better to do what is known as a ‘grey balance’ for best results.

The technique is simple. Replace that white card (you do have one and you do use it…right?) in your camera kit with a grey one. Use it the same way as you would the white one. The explanation for why this works better is highly technical and rather complicated to explain (non-techie readers might want to skip down to Myth #2).

For simplicity’s sake, remember what you were taught white balancing is – telling your camera what color ‘white’ is so that it reproduces all the colors as your eye would see them. Again, this is only half-true. It causes some people to get really worried about finding something perfectly white. In a pinch, you can hold up a page of script in front of your camera and white balance on that. It’s amazing how many people freak out that it has black text on it because that’s not white.

That doesn’t really matter. White, grey, and black are all colorless parts of the image. All are valid ‘colors’ to use to tell your sensor what ‘no color’ looks like.

In the digital world, every pixel of every image is made up of two pieces of information, color and luminance. A true white pixel is a dot on the screen with zero saturation (no color is more present than any other) and maximum luminance (the brightness is as high as it can be). In RGB colorspace, this is represented as 255, 255, 255. Each color (R: red, G: green, B: blue) is present in the greatest amount possible (255), producing a bright white pixel with zero color saturation.

In contrast, a black pixel is the exact opposite: still zero saturation, but minimum luminance (RGB value: 0, 0, 0). Neither of these is ideal for white balancing.

In actuality, you want a grey pixel (any RGB value between 0, 0, 0 and 255, 255, 255 in which all three numbers remain equal, such as 25, 25, 25 or 234, 234, 234). This is because each color channel will clip at 0 or 255 if it tries to move past this number. When that’s the case, it throws off your white balance and thus the color in the final image.

#2 – Sometimes you want to use an off-white color

Ever film someone in front of a white wall? Of course you have.

That is you’ve filmed someone in front of what you think is a white wall. It’s probably not quite white, but actually off-white.

Old schools buildings and offices are famous for this. They have that white-painted brick that actually has a hint of brown in it. But you perceive it to be pretty much white.

You can use this to your advantage. When shooting a talking head in front of such a wall, you might want to consider white balancing on the wall. Technically, your color will be slightly off, but if the audience perceives the wall to be white anyway, it will probably be more visually pleasing to just sell it as white and let the rest of the color suffer slightly as a result.

If the effect is noticeable, the wall isn’t close enough to white for this to apply; if it’s not, well then you’ve sold it now haven’t you? This works better because it’s harder for the average viewer to see if the person’s skin tones are correct than if the wall is white or not.

Now if you’re doing any sort of color correction in post you can obviously take your pick of wall or gray card and tweak the other part of the image later. This is the ideal solution, but when that is not an option (in fast-paced environments like broadcast news, or live sports, for instance) you’re going to have to fall prey to one side of the trade-off or the other.

#3 – Sometimes you want to use a different color entirely

I once read about a photographer who carries a color wheel right next to his gray card – and he uses both for the same thing, “white balancing.”

When you balance to a color that isn’t white, black, or gray, it produces an image with a certain color cast to it. Obviously this is exactly what you’re typically trying to “fix” or “avoid” by white balancing.

However, sometimes it’s exactly what you want to do for creative effect. Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report (2002) is best known by some as “that blue film.” That is the entire film is tinted blue, deliberately. They treated the film in post with an effect known as a ‘bleach bypass’ to achieve this effect, but you can get a similar effect by ‘white balancing’ to an orange card.

Why orange? That’s where the color wheel comes in. You look for the color you want in the final image and white balance to the color opposite it on the color wheel. If you want a green cast, you white balance on purple.

It’s easy to memorize and do this for the complementary colors of the primary and secondary colors, but for super specific shades or tints, well that’s where having the color wheel on set with you becomes so useful.

#4 – Just dial it in

Using a card is often not the best way to set your white balance. It’s amazing how many people think that just because you never held a card up in front of the lens means that you didn’t white balance properly.

Using a card is really a technique that was aimed at the video camcorder market. Today’s prosumer oriented cameras (video DSLRs especially) usually still have the manual white balance feature where you point at a card and press a button, but this often isn’t how professional crews do it.

There are differences here between the live broadcast crowds and the spot production or cinema crowds.

Live broadcasts will usually color shade their cameras live. This means that there is a separate person or group of people at a console tweaking the color on the production truck or in the control room. Only on-site news crews really need to control color from the camera itself. Everyone else uses a separate camera control unit (CCU) or color shader.

The advantage to this is that the color shader (the person on the truck) can make all the cameras match perfectly. If each individual operator set the color in-camera using the card method, none of the cameras would actually match (because of sight inaccuracies, changes in lighting, different camera locations, different card tints…it becomes a nasty list!). It’s so much easier to handle all the color from a central location with a bank of high quality monitors.

Cinema-style spot production uses another method. They dial in the white balance in camera, although typically by setting the camera to the desired Kelvin value, instead of using a card. Again, this allows the cameras to mostly match.

The issue here is the individual sensors in each camera on a multicamera shoot may vary slightly in color reproduction. Setting the white balance in camera, using Kelvin values or not, doesn’t account for this. Some cameras have built-in adjustments you can calibrate to correct for this, others don’t, but at any rate, that’s why some minor color correction in post always becomes a desirable thing. Same concept as the color shading idea in live work, but not being live, your colorist can put much more time and effort into getting the perfect grade.

As far as setting your camera dial for the correct camera setting, there are simple rules to follow. Since the rules for how Kelvin values are affected by what filters you use and the gels you place in front of your lights can get quite complicated, you’ll have to wait for a future post to read them. Likewise, look for my color correction tips and methods in a series of upcoming posts.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

Guest Posts to Watch

As hinted at in Wednesday’s blog post, the first post of my soon-to-be regular guest post series on toturnbacktime.com’s Project Updates feed is live. Check it out.

The production’s equipment purchases have mostly shipped and the first batch arrived in the office today, so clearly there will be a lot to talk about on that site over the next few days.

Sports Action

As a sports broadcaster, yesterday marked an important date in the world of baseball, as it was Opening Day across both MLB and MiLB.

It also saw the largest crowd ever at both Parkview Field and PNC Park. I’d like to think this was caused from a lot of people reading my blog post that mentions the two side-by-side a few weeks ago, but it could just be a mere coincidence…

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up:

Although I usually try to avoid asking people for money here or otherwise (read my site disclaimer for details, see also the note at the end of this post), this is a fairly worthy cause that I feel is worth such a rare post.

Even if you don’t feel led to or can’t financially support the project, read on for some exciting details about what I’ve been working on. Now that the video is live and certain information is public, I can talk about some things that were previously protected by my non-disclosure agreement with the producers.

In brief, some of my filmmaking buddies from Several Houses Productions have put together a project under the working title “To Turn Back Time.” The official plot synopsis (POTENTIAL SPOILERS) is below:

“‘To Turn Back Time’  is the story of John, who has just graduated college, when he wakes up one morning to discover that his long deceased father is alive. After getting to know his father—something he’s longed for his entire life—he discovers his dad’s presence isn’t the only thing that’s different. The rest of his family has changed too, along with his own ability to help his girlfriend Alyssa through the death of her mother.  In the end, he’s faced with a terrible choice: to stay in the world where his father lives and lose the man he’s become, or give it up for the sake of the love of those around him.”

As you can tell from the video (shot and edited by yours truly – if you watched it before today you saw the version with a temp score and should check out the new version), this script is highly personal for the writer/director and has resulted in a level of ambition and commitment from both him and the others attached to the project that you don’t see everyday (there’s a certain drive among the crew to take home an Academy Award for Best Live Action Short next year…). It must show because they raised $2,500 in the first twenty-four hours, 25% of the budget they’d hoped to raise over the next 3 weeks!

Production Notes

In some ways, this is a big step for a lot of the crew. Although they have worked on a number of independent films before, to my knowledge they’ve never had the opportunity afforded to them by this sort of budget before, they’ve never had the ability to fly actors halfway across the country like this, and they’ve never worked on a project that’s been submitted to one (let alone multiple) Academy Award qualifying festivals before (although many have certainly worked on titles worthy of such an honor).

But what’s important is that they are committed to making all of these things happen – and they’ve proven in the past that they have the talent to use such resources knowledgeably and effectively.

The producers have set up a production website and blog, which I will likely be posting to at some point, hopefully in written and video blog (BTS featurettes) format. I may also be able to post occasional updates right here once production begins.

Personal Notes

There wasn’t room to include everything from my interview in the kickstarter video, but on a personal note, I’ve worked on a lot of projects before, and it’s fairly amazing how quickly the funding for this one has already started to come in – and it’s entirely donations based.

This goes beyond the kickstarter campaign. People from the community and elsewhere have also been more than willing to volunteer their time, talent, and resources because they believe in what these filmmakers are doing with this project.

As a filmmaker, seeing others who believe in you and who sacrifice something to help like this is always an encouraging sign that really helps motivate us artists to put out top quality work and effort day-in and day-out. Honestly, with all the outside support we’ve already been seeing, I can’t wait to join the producers on set to help make this project a reality.

Disclaimer: I am attached to this project as the director of photography and as a consultant to the producers. However, I am not receiving direct monetary benefits based on the results of this kickstarter campaign. The results will, however, influence the final film’s budget significantly. So if we raise enough to rent some nice Zeiss CP.2 lenses, I will in fact be indirectly profiting at heart. Take that how you will.

As always, investing in film projects involves a high degree of risk and should always be considered a donation or a speculative investment. Neither I, nor the producers of “To Turn Back Time” can make any claims of potential ROI nor, at this time, can we produce reasonable guarantees that the film will be completed in a form that guarantees it will be accepted by film festivals or otherwise find a sufficient outlet for mass distribution.

Copyright 2011-2012 Brendan Shick
All Rights Reserved.

BrendanShick.com - Filmmaker/Freelancer/Broadcaster

Get an email when the next post is up: