Editing

Guys I have to do this presentation for kids. And I need to show them an extract of a movie, a tv show or a cartoon that would explain to them notion of editing. For the life of me I can't find anything! Do you have any ideas?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/ruoPT9JeYHA
youtube.com/watch?v=JlwXVx3nL-Y
youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ
youtube.com/watch?v=rNlmRId2FVQ
youtube.com/watch?v=YMn8XYt2RCQ
youtube.com/watch?v=3U2Puf9u6ro
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Shameless self bump

try tony "the meme chink" zhou

can't you show them bloopers, and explain why they get edited out

That's actually an awesome idea dude, thanks.

youtu.be/ruoPT9JeYHA

Anything that demonstrates the kuloshov technique really.

How old are the kids? What's the rating restriction?

y-you too

10 year old max, no sex no horror but violence is okay-ish. Love the blooper idea, if you have more I'm listening

good editing = can't see it
for intresting movie edits i would mention quick-shots in "Requiem for a Dream", they are very intense and an example of editing
youtube.com/watch?v=JlwXVx3nL-Y

youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ
Either show them this video, or take the main points of it and expand on them yourself. He also has one on Edgar Wright's editing style you could check out.

...

And as an example of what not to do. (You should already know what this is before clicking on it)
youtube.com/watch?v=rNlmRId2FVQ

Fuck, I forgot this is the 21st century. The links straight up say what video it is.

what kind of work do you do user?

>good editing = can't see it
basically this, but Don't show them gimmicks like the video user

gave me a seizure

>good editing = can't see it
Why is that necessarily a given? What if some people are more observant of editing than others?
>for intresting movie edits i would mention quick-shots in "Requiem for a Dream"
Yes, so interesting. Might as well pick out a music video.

I don't get it, this must have been three times as much work as just getting one or two shots of him climbing over the fence. It's a ton of effort for a shitty result.

I remember when my teacher taught us what editing was she had us watch the shower scene from Psycho and made us clap everytime the camera cut, and how each cut was a seperate shot and they're edited together to show the passing of time, etc.

I don't know if Shrek is allowed because it's CGI, but it's intro is really good. Most of the time the location of the subject in each shot remains static between cuts. One obvious example is at 2:33 where Shrek's fire smoothly transitions into the villagers' fire. There are plenty of other examples too.
youtube.com/watch?v=YMn8XYt2RCQ

I think the "can't see it" aspect manifests as you not asking
>why the fuck is this happening
It needs to be seemless or immersive
Or if not immersing, serving to illustrate what is happening in a way that doesn't get people asking questions

What movie is this?????

I'm just a student

I asked everybody around me (mostly film students) and nobody could help me. And you anons just did. I don't deserve you guys.

how are you teaching kids?

That all depends though. It doesn't need to be anything. A lot of editing techniques that are pretty standard nowadays were not so seamless or immersive for the audience when they were introduced.

>good editing = can't see it
IMO an example of that is in Manchester by the Sea:
youtube.com/watch?v=3U2Puf9u6ro
At the end of this clip when Kenneth Lonergan is walking away from Affleck and Hedges there is a completely unnecessary shot of him walking away and looking back at them. He never shows up again, he wasn't important enough for the scene's continuity to "follow" him, and I thought while watching it "That looks like it was left in by accident."

I'm not teaching, it's just cultural mediation for kids outside of their school hours in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. It's the biggest library here and my college has a partnership with the bibliothèque. Sorry for my awful english, wish I had the skills to explain better.

Number one, nothing here contradicts what I said. Number two, that whole sequence was poorly shot and edited, so nothing stood out to me. It didn't look like an accident. Just bad editing.

>Just bad editing.
yeah sorry if I wasn't clear, I didn't genuinely think it was left in by accident, just that it was a poor editing choice

Right, and what I'm saying is that it was one of many bad choices within a minute long sequence. It didn't stand out. It didn't pull me out of the moment.

And none of this supports the idea that good editing is editing that you don't notice.

Ehh, not a bad example. It would have a reason to be there if Affleck and the kid were in the frame too, but this seems off now that you mention it.

I don't know whether this is too intermediate for 10 years old but demonstrating them some soviet montage methods like continuity cuts, intellectual montage, tonal/over tonal. Some of them you could actually explain them to 10 yrs olds, right?

it's probably not the best to show kids desu it just came to mind.

Just admit to the kids you know just as much about editing as they do. Stop living a lie and harming children.

Taken 3

Thanks