Yeah - sorry if I wasn't clear. That seemed like a rebuttal of my point, but I assumed it'd be clear from the context of everything I've written here and from my videoblog that I wasn't disagreeing with Dan's comment that "It looks like it took a team of people being paid a lot of money to fake something that is much more interesting....what I've witnessed from this group here." I agree with that. Nor was I passing judgement about the content of the clarkandmichael and the way it's been made, and what it represents, though perhaps I should have done to make myself clearer.
I was just saying that it's no surprise to me that people with lots of money fake a cheap look while still spending lots of money instead of just shooting it the same way people with no money do. Because that's how they make more money. As far as clarkandmichael is concerned, they lost me the moment it opened when they switched from one camera behind the counter to show him signing the papers, then to another camera behind him, then back to the camera behind the counter to show his face. for a scene of him doing nothing. and then they repeated that trick throughout. if you're going to fake something, at least fake it well. this kind of bullshit totally disrupts your emotional engagement with it and ability to suspend disbelief. and theirs, too, by the look of it - their 'natural' acting is way off and their timing is lousy. fffft. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 24-Aug-08, at 4:08 AM, Bill Cammack wrote: I agree with Dan, entirely. That was the point of my previous post on this topic. In case people watched that and thought it was something that was done in a bootstrapped fashion, please refer to the dual-camera shoot, complete with boom operator (read: a third crew member that's getting paid to be on-set to record the sound). According to <http://forums.creativecow.net/archivepost/30/479679> from 2004, "Non union sound mixers are getting $350 in most areas of the country, including flyover. Union adds about $100 to the cost. Boom operators get less, aproximately $250 for non union and $100 more for union. Most of the extra $100 goes to pension and hospital benefits." So just for the sound RECORDING part of that show, they were spending $350/day by *2004* union standards. Then you add the two camera operators, the two actors and whatever extras were in the different episodes, post production editing, sweetening and sound mixing. There's nothing to hate on about this situation. It's business as usual. I'm just saying that a lot of people read this group for basically DiY information. It's completely disingenuous to allow people to think that a couple of actors took a camera on their own, shot something on their own, with no lighting, no sound recording help, directed it themselves for the different angles, scripted it themselves, edited it themselves, sound mixed it themselves, compressed it themselves, built their own website and embedded the video themselves. ANYBODY with a budget could do the exact same thing. Dan's point, which I agree with, is that it would be just as interesting to watch *YOU* take your little telephone-camera and document your move to Canada... or your attempts to get rich making industrial videos... or your attempt to put together your YouTube game/video using annotations. The point of interest is the characters involved, NOT the fact that it's a multi-camera shoot with at least three crew members being paid by the hour to create it. For instance, now that I'm thinking about it... Go watch Mike's "Project Pedal": <http://blog.projectpedal.com/archives/ 2004_09_01_projectpedal_archive.html> . He gets out his hand-held camera and tells people what's been going on with his film, like the drives failed, or they're almost finished loading, or his relationship broke up or whatever. It's real. It's way more interesting, and it's way less expensive. Having said that... You bring up interesting points about budget inflation. Unfortunately, some of that "inflation" is necessary, as I'm sure you understand. If you don't have a boom operator or at least a sound recorder, your audio's liable to be uneven, which means you have to "fix it in the mix" if you can, which means you pay more on the post end and less on the production end. If you don't have two cameras shooting simultaneously, you have to get the actors to act AT LEAST twice as long to do their lines AGAIN after you set up the camera and lights for the other angle. If you don't have someone scripting/directing the production, you have to hire someone like me to make SOMETHING out of your NOTHING when you film a bunch of random stuff with no storyline or character development to it. So, yeah... COULD this show have been done with one camera, by a couple of actors documenting something? Sure. Was it? No. So I think it's valid and relevant for Dan to point out that there are "shows" and stories going on right here, such as http://projectpedal.com and http://epicfu.com and http://somethingtobedesired.com/ that are ACTUALLY about people bootstrapping and trying to make it which AREN'T being faked and ARE way more interesting. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, that's how you make money. These people aren't doing it for > the thrill or the art. They don't care about making something > 'interesting' if they don't get paid. Supposedly most Hollywood > movies lose money... but the hundreds of people who work on them get > paid a lot of money. And the bigger the budget, the bigger the fee > that the producer and principals get paid. > > In this case, why on earth would the producer set up a low budget > videoblog for clarkandmichael.com, with a total cost per episode of > just a few hundred dollars, when he can artificially inflate the > budget by hiring lots of people and get CBS to pay 10 or 20 times as > much, especially if he's getting 20 per cent of the production cost > as a fee? > > I've made low budget corporate videos and web videos professionally > for years now, and somehow didn't realise that it would never make me > rich. If you want to make money out of media, you don't make low > budget videos. You set up a big operation with a big impressive > budget and get somebody to pay and a bunch of people to actually make > it. Then, if nobody watches when it's broadcast, your bank account > still has tens of thousands of dollars worth of salary in it. And > you already have two or three other big operations in the pipe. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.tv > > > On 23-Aug-08, at 11:13 AM, danielmcvicar wrote: > > It looks like it took a team of people being paid a lot of money to > fake something that is > much more interesting....what I've witnessed from this group here. > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <jay.dedman@> > wrote: > > > > has anyone seen...http://www.clarkandmichael.com/index.php > > Interesting because many of us have always imagined that younger > > Hollywood would not have a problem with being creative online. > > > > Seems that CBS is using Wordpress(I think) to create their different > > online "shows". > > Anyone know the story behind it? > > > > Jay > > > > -- > > http://jaydedman.com > > 917 371 6790 > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
