Jewel Of The Forest

You keep reminding us...

...but spamming with a dozen topics about it won't get you anymore viewers.


...not that the movie speaks for itself.
 

bigdaddygamer14

New member
The only reason I make movies is to entertain people so that they can have fun. Seriously, don't be rude when we worked 3 months just for your viewing pleasure.
 

Eric Solo

Member
I just saw Part 1 on youtube. Nice job! Especially considering your age.

"I have a lot of fond memories with that HAT!" lol

My Raiders / Star Wars parody is uploading now. It's still a work in progress. I have been working on mine for over a year now (off and on). I'll post the link shortly.
 
bigdaddygamer14 said:
The only reason I make movies is to entertain people so that they can have fun. Seriously, don't be rude when we worked 3 months just for your viewing pleasure.


Lol--just saw this. I needn't be appreciative--I didn't ask you to make this "masterpiece."

Point stands--you've made like 5 topics about this already. One topic suffices, I don't see the point in spamming with multiple topics.

And on a nit-picking side-note, you haven't made a film. That is a video. There's a difference and using the two interchangeably is both incorrect and a major point of annoyance for me, and I'm sure many others who love the smell of emulsion and the old ways that are unfortunately being pushed aside in favor of cheaper and easier.
 

Eric Solo

Member
It's not film, but Fan Movie or fan VIDEO just doesn't have a good ring to it.

Hey, digital video tape is kind of ..... filmy. Right?
 
"digital video tape is kind of ..... filmy"
And you can do a LOT more with it easier than you can do things on 'film'

So, where's the links to these fan-films?
 

Eric Solo

Member
Here's part 1 of my Raiders parody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_2KHPsCWbE

I shot this in HD, but the youtube conversion has made the picture quality so bad. I'm working with adobe CS3. Any of you guys know how to improve the exported video quality on youtube? This is a work in progress as you can tell by the lack of sound effects, etc.
 
Last edited:

Eric Solo

Member
It's hard to tell with no sound FX, but the red shirt and Barranca both get shot in the neck with a Burritos dart. lol
 

Eric Solo

Member
Thanks, you guys. I know some of you don't like mixing Star Wars and Indy, but I hope you like this fan film anyway.
 

Inbanana

New member
Thanks, I enjoyed that. I like how you never see Indy's head for the first couple of minutes in and then the camera finally pans up: "That idiot stole my hat...".

Nice music/sound editing, and I like how some of the scenes were shot... but I think they could have been edited down a bit to improve pacing, but then again, its not like I'm a 'film' student or anything so I don't know what I'm talking about...

...the "Beastly Man" was a nice touch.
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
ResidentAlien said:
You might, but we aren't. And I'll be sure to correct you when you do.

Cut these guys a break, ResidentAlien. I'm a film student too, but I don't go round correcting people. Besides, there are big budget movies out there that claim they're films, when they were really shot in HD (like the Star Wars prequels). And if you really want to get technical, I would just like to point out there are only two cinemas in the world that use digital projection. Every other cinema had digital movies telecined in reverse to film and technically can be called a film because a film projector is used for viewing in the cinema. But, like you I wouldn't call it a film, but that's really a matter of perspective. And I have shot on film so I do understand and know the difference quite well. Especially the expense. :rolleyes:
 
Violet Indy said:
Cut these guys a break, ResidentAlien. I'm a film student too, but I don't go round correcting people. Besides, there are big budget movies out there that claim they're films, when they were really shot in HD (like the Star Wars prequels). And if you really want to get technical, I would just like to point out there are only two cinemas in the world that use digital projection. Every other cinema had digital movies telecined in reverse to film and technically can be called a film because a film projector is used for viewing in the cinema. But, like you I wouldn't call it a film, but that's really a matter of perspective. And I have shot on film so I do understand and know the difference quite well. Especially the expense. :rolleyes:


Yes, of course, there's digital intermediary... which isn't involved here. It's digital through and through.

I have a right to be stubborn. As I said myself, it is in fact nitpicking, but when you see the whole thing collapsing around your ears and then you have this sort of glib ignorance that exacerbates the problem, well it tends to be annoying. Hell, the film department here at school is starting to do away with film! They just stopped doing the 16mm intro course and turned it into a video course with such memorable projects as talking head interviews. :rolleyes: Is it nitpicking? Sure--but better that than allow ignorance on the issue perpetuate. I love shooting on film (aside from that expense as you mentioned :rolleyes: ).

Any rate, my initial point of complaint stands--we needn't be bombarded with six different topics about this video.
 

Eric Solo

Member
Are there ANY fan videos in the Fan Film Theater that are actually films? Even the early ones from the '80s are done on videotape right?
 
Top