Film Makers of Sup Forums, how do you conceptualize interesting shots? Do you have them in a spark of genius...

Film Makers of Sup Forums, how do you conceptualize interesting shots? Do you have them in a spark of genius, or do you go through a throurough process to come up with the best idea.

Other urls found in this thread:

docs.google.com/document/d/1_-cYRDTeQY-uIZYwPLZULKhVhLbnSKgM5c7NSRlPQ_I/edit?usp=sharing
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

If you get anything but shitpost replies I'll eat my own head

I get random visions from nowhere that i then put into the context of a story, or i improvise in a given location until i get something that look visually appealing. Never be happy with something mediocre

eat my short!

That's what I have been doing so far, it definitely can work for some. Werner Herzog even advocates for the use of no story board or shot list. A lot of the time I come back though and my scene feels so lacking in substance to me. I am not sure if it falls into the camera work, the production design, or what. I think perhaps I should try to fill my scenes with more worthless scenery to craft the world.

Tbh it depends. Sometimes you story board and plan so that shots will reflect the narrative theme of the film, a character arc, or the whole film's theme.

However more often than not you get to the location and it just happens. A good cinematographer has an eye for lighting and composition. A good director has an idea for how the aethetic should be but a great director knows when to step back and not micromanage a dp.

Do people ever draw the shot out and recreate the scene exactly?

Once I know the location and the scene I can usually visualize it in my head and that gives me the general idea of what I should do. Then once I have a setup I tweak light, camera, and actors it to get it right.

I think the key is to always have a clear plan before you shoot. That way you can concentrate on the details and come out with professional looking shots.

Watch lots of movies. Develop your sense of visual language.

if they are autistic

Pre-production is the key.
Go before cameras or crew. Walk around. People dont understand how important pre-production is.

Where i can upload my screenplay so people can give it feedback and read it?
I've worked half way trough and could really use some pointers if the premise works and so on.

In my experience, when that does happen the shots won't translate. The only time this will really work is if you have the budget to build what shots you want. Even then you're limiting yourself. Building shots is a good idea but you have to be willing to toss out those plans if a better shot presents itself.
Film isn't really like a war. It's more like a prison break- a series of frantic elements that need to be honed to get the goal accomplished.

Just upload it to google docs and post it on multiple forums, etc

Beautiful analogy, thank you.

It really depends. I tend to go for wide shots and a long depth of field, or wide lens close-ups. I'm not very imaginative.
t. Went to film school

I'm going to try to be nice. No one wants to read your shitty screenplay. BUT you can get people excited. Shoot a scene or get a sizzle reel going. Otherwise you're farting against a thunderstorm

Yeah you're suppose to. It's called storyboarding and it really helps everything.

Not many do it and it fucks up everything in their production almost in a domino effect:
>Gaffer doesn't know what he's setting up beforehand, so he rents way too much lighting equipment ($$)
>Actors get cold because set-ups take longer
>DP fiddles and changes their mind a lot taking up time
>Director loses their focus on the production
>AD realizes they're over time and hurries the shoot
>They end up compromising and cutting out better shots for more convenient ones
>Continuity errors
>Bad acting
>...
>Boom, it's another low-budget, student film

Just get a good storyboard artist, have the extra pre-production meeting, go over the shotlist AND bring the storyboards for reference and you avoid all this shit senpai

t. Went to film school

Basically i go through 1000 index cards and keep 5 of the best ones

"Interesting" shots should never be the goal. Effective shot is the goal. And if you know the effect you are seeking, the most effective shot will come naturally when you think hard enough.

Don't plan out shots just for the sake of making a "cool" shot.
Your shot should serve the narrative, not be a separate indentity on it's own.

Whatever is the focus in that scene try to emphasize it with framing and composition.

Personally, I go about it slightly differently.
I lay out the actions of the characters and figure out what they are going to do.
Then, depending on what emotion or feeling I want the camera to convey, I choose the perspective.

As far as pure artistic shots, those come second to story.

To make a truly visually pleasing shot, what we call kino, you have to forgo logical placement of the camera.

Well are you going to keep us waiting user?

I storyboard
It helps me immensely because you're giving yourself time to just focus on what you want the film to look like
When you get on set, you're so preoccupied with blocking and technical set-ups, you don't really have time to sit and ponder for 5 minutes what angles might look cool

Its ok to be rude. And you are right.
I got few people to check it out tho. It helps me a lot when i know if my writing is bad or not, since this is very much a first time im writing a feature.

This is bad advice
Some films,you just want effective shots
But other films are made due to the beauty of their interesting shots

It's fine if you don't like that, but don't pretend that's the objective way of doing it

What do you define as beauty?

An effective shot could be a wide landscape shot. It could be magic hour and all that shit, just gorgeous. But it's effective in conveying the meaning and mood the DP/Director intend on.

How many times have you seen a pretty shot for the sake of a pretty shot that is also interesting and usable? Never.

>How many times have you seen a pretty shot for the sake of a pretty shot that is also interesting and usable?
what is:
>every western between 1930 and 1970
>2001: a space odyssey
>Tarkovsky's entire filmography
>Malick's "films" (i don't like them, but his fans sure do)
etc

You literally have no idea what you're talking about

fuck I meant to say that ISN'T also interesting and usable?

this is how i work

i dont know what makes a shot good
but i know immediatly what makes shot bad
so i remove all the thing that i dont like from the shot and whats left by theory should be alright.

I do a dutch angle
overhead angle
far away voyer shit.

Everyone just says I'm a tryhard hack tho. You can never win.

I hope you are baiting.
Saying that Kubrick and Tarkovsky are composing shots just because "they look pretty" is borderline retarded.

3/10 for making me reply.

>so i remove all the thing that i dont like from the shot and whats left by theory should be alright.

So you leave the room and let others do the job?

OH SNAP YOU GOT ME MOTHERFUCKER WHAAAAAAAA HIGH FIVE BRO

2001 is boring because it's obvious i'm just being shown 'cool' shots. the whole movie isn't compelling for that reason, it's a disjointed series of neat looking things.

tarkovsky, westerns, and malick use the natural shots thematically as well as for their aesthetics.

it's not just, hey look at this flower

I tend to look at shots I see in film and possibly try to recreate them, or at least draw some sort of inspiration from them. Right now I'm very into blocking, and how to sync camera movements with that of actors. Naturally, I've been looking at tracking shots, mostly Scorsese's work, and stuff like pic related. Still haven't got to work on my first film though.

If you've written a good story, the shots should be simple to visualise. Too many people try and create shots while they are writing and then realise too late the what they've written and the shots they've planned don't work.

Write then imagine the shots. But as someone said, you're not going to have a budget to do what you want, so you'll have to adjust on the fly.

your sacrifice will not be forgotten

If you really use dutch angle, kill yourself.

Source?

WHY DOES EVERYONE SAY THIS!!?!???/

K I N O

They're ugly and hard to understand/parse

yeah, this
Kubrick and Tarkovsky clearly just told the actors to act out the script and then put the camera in an entirely arbitrary place that just happened to capture amazing shots
But they certainly never 'composed' their shots

post pics

sauce?

"Beauty" is effect. "Interest" is effect. "Beauty" and "interest" are not superficial, and go much deeper than just a pretty picture, right into the "text" of the movie, and the intellectual process inside the person's head. "Beauty" is the essence of storytelling, and composing shots is inseparable from the "textual" side of storytelling. (I use "text" in the broad sense which includes the concrete objects on screen.)

>and the intellectual process inside the [viewer]'s head.

docs.google.com/document/d/1_-cYRDTeQY-uIZYwPLZULKhVhLbnSKgM5c7NSRlPQ_I/edit?usp=sharing

Please shit on my screenplay so i actually rewrite it.

no. i just copy shots form movies i've scene. some look cool others look bad. its all a learning experience

not bad

...

use a proper script format, this is unreadable. too much description and too much dialogue - watch some similar scenes - an economy of dialogue, of words is present in nearly every movie.

Googledocs doesnt understand FD format.
But thanks anyway, i think the beginning is the one wich needs rewrite most.

If you write it again, I promise to sometime read the first 20 pages and give you honest coverage

I went to nyu

that's wasteful. its better to plan and have a shot in mind for efficiency. otherwise you'd be doing reshots all over. you do use storyboards right?

Kubrick was way too autistic/OCD to not have his shots say something. Whether he did a good job making them accessible enought for the audience is another question

found the cucks

This is probably the best advice in the thread, and ironically it was the only piece of advice that got shat on. Shows you exactly how much the wannabes on Sup Forums know about making films.

Don't think that way, find your own definition of interesting, you have to be honest with yourself.

What could work in the enviroment you are shooting in?

How does the lighting reflect the mood, theme, or character in a way that can be communicated visually?

Think about where a scene takes place, what do you want to communicate to the audience?

These are the questions you need to ask yourself.

ITT a bunch of cis fags that have never written a two page analysis of citizen kane who can barely press the red button on their camera

if you need to take 5 minutes to ponder a simple shot choice you shouldn't be near a camera.

"logical placement of the camera" is an absolute necessity and completely indispensable. if anything comes before that you're absolutely a failure as a visual raconteur

taking a picture of something worth looking at is fucking effortless.

finding something worth taking that shot is a challenge.

the artform isn't pressing the button, it's finding something worth putting in the frame.

ITT some retard thinks that you could write an analysis of citizen kane in just two pages.

sent ;)

I go to films

Not everyone is a shitposter

>Film Makers of Sup Forums

"image.jpg" nice one retard, was it hard looking up costanza face meme on google images?

nicey oney

>how do you visualize
close your damn eyes son

I didn't even say visualize you god damn shit cunt

I usually make a shotlist where i imagine how actors and lighting will be set up before the first camera even starts rolling. Sometimes i'll only plan some specific shots, and then improvise others when filming a scene. Always look for things on set that can make the composition better than what you imagined when planning. Kill your darlings etc

You have low visio spatial IQ and are probably a supersonic turbo pleb.
How much do you know about camera equipment? Not enough, I bet.
You just don't have what it takes, kid. It's clear that you don't have the sensibilities required to be in this racket.
I know more about lenses than any cinematographer in the business, and that's because I don't just learn what the standard is, I go past it and continue learning.
Stylistically, you're like that of a limbless painter. You don't have what it takes so you come on an internet forum looking for handouts. Well, guess what, it doesn't work like that. I make stunning visual pieces. When I make my next work, it will be another masterpiece, ya moron.

>Not everyone is a shitposter

That isn't entirely accurate. I think what you mean to say is that everyone is a shitposter, but we don't always shitpost.

take this advice user

Animatics/Storyboarding ...learn how to draw.

>Film Makers of Sup Forums
D-do these exist?

Reel?

...

...

...

...

Nice aesthetic, very classic. You obviously enjoy the cinema and the conventions of the style. What are you going to add that's new?

Spark of inspiration.
Thought of a real good one the other day while I was running.
Shot of a Destroyer from her Starboard quarter steaming in open ocean on an overcast day. See incoming missiles and CIWS rotating towards them.
POV shot of missile. CIWS hits it and it explodes.
Wide shot of the Starboard side. Missiles keep coming in and CIWS keeps getting them but they are getting closer and closer.
Shot of CWIS mount. CWIS spins towards another missile just as it slams into the side.
=======Now here's the good part=======
Wide shot above the cloud cover. Quick flash bellow the clouds. Black smoke penetrates the clouds and starts to spread like blood on a sheet.

Wadaya think, Sup Forums?

>he doesn't even know who Gallo is
Good luck with that career bro

My bad bro I thought you were trying to impress us with your own work so I was being nice. Those stills are derivative garbage.

My original post was literally just random words and you bought it because you genuinely are a low iq pleb. It didn't even make sense.
>Vincent Gallo
>Derivative garbage
Good one, I laughed out loud
How's that career going, though?