• READ BEFORE POSTING!
    • If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
    • If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.

watch Feature: "Digits"

Hello all,

First time poster, I know. Thank you for giving my post the time of day.

I have a link here for my feature film "Digits".

I originally posted it on SuperHeroHype forums in the Misc film section as it's indie and not a superhero film and got a bunch of positive responses and was referred to here by Rocketman on those forums (Not sure if he's got the same username here or not).

Anywho - it's an indie comedy and does contain a lot of mature content as it has been deemed very offensive to some people - but absolutely hilarious from others.

We sold out theaters in private screenings, sold hundreds of DVD's and Blu-rays of it and now just this past Friday we've decided to premiere it free online.

I always wondered if a forum like this existed - so I'm glad to join my peers and colleagues in this indie world in look forward to discussions and new friendships.

Here is the link = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9cdDNJKuWc&feature=share

Hope you enjoy.

- Jow
 
Last edited:
"Are we still talking about her thong?"
I almost died of laughter.

9/10. There are issues with it like too much zooming, overexposure, and sometimes cheesy dialogue. But the writing and acting is near-perfect, and the story is good. I laughed throughout.
 
Last edited:
lol thank you very much. That's quite a flattering score if I do say so myself.

I'm glad someone on here enjoyed it.

- Jow
 
88 views and can't get a single response? What's the hold up kids?

- Jow

Par for the course, actually.

"Watch my film" posts typically get hundreds of views and no posts. One of the major flaws of this forum.

Since the majority of links are, lets say, less than perfect films, no one says a thing. It doesn't help when those that actually post a response and call obvious crap, crap!, get accused of being "negative."

So there you have it.
 
lol my flick ain't perfect, but I know it's not crap.

I'm thinking the 2 hr run time on YT is what's keeping peeps from watching it. I don't mind constructive criticsm at all tho.

Of course, I'm sure there's no much anyone can tell me about whats wrong with the flick that I don't already know.

Ah well... off to greener pastures I guess I shall go if no one cares to check it out and offer feed back or support.

- Jow
 
I'm thinking the 2 hr run time on YT is what's keeping peeps from watching it.

Without having seen your film, I'd say it's a safe bet. It might have kept it from getting into some festivals if you went that route. 90 minutes might be the max you'd want to do for your next project.
 
OK, I'll add my 2 cents. Your film contains some good material, some good acting, some good editing, some good pacing, etc. It also contains a lot of weaknesses in these same areas and some serious weaknesses in others. The music is rather poor quality and often not a particularly good choice artistically, the sound design is to be honest terrible or simply non-existent and combined with the poor mixing is definitely a major weakness. The grading is not good and the shaky camera adds nothing artistically, it only detracts in my opinion and makes the film look no budget. The pacing of the film is also a quite a problem in places although I should mention that I've only skipped through bits of your film rather than having actually watched the whole thing through.

All these weaknesses, major and minor means that your film is far from professional standards. However, despite my harsh criticism I've seen many much worse no budget films and there were parts which had me wanting to watch more to see what happens, which is a great sign and proves that as a film maker you certainly have potential.

G
 
Yep. It was shot 0 budget lol. It was the first film, with no crew. I had to do all the crew positions. And we had 0 budget for song rights so the royalty free music I had to use was pretty terrible. Past that, and your user name let me know right away you were gonna catch me on it - there is 0 sound design. I have a basic knowledge of mostly everything but audio and mixing was the hardest part and I didn't do much work on. I am litterlly lost in the woods in that area and have no idea how to fix / improve. I keep telling my "producer" (aka a friend who knows nothing and I tried to teach how to do the actual job but he just bitched about things and didn't do any work) that what we need is an audio person for all future projects.

Believe me, I'm embaressed about the sound issues in this film and it plagues me to this day.

(As a professional editor (I wasn't when I made this) I totally agree with the pacing issues. The computer I edited on didn't have much memory and had a lot of lag so it became near impossible to maintain patience while editing and take the proper time for it. Regardless, that's another valid criticism that I 100% agree with.

Shaky cam, we decided to go the mockumentry route as shooting on 0 budget I knew we were going to have issues and that we could band-aid them with talking heads and cover it with the low budget look.

By choice - I'm a writer, director. All the other aspects are things I can do, and would love to be able to do better - but I will admit I am an amateur on and need help to grow on.

Regardless, thank you for the quick view if only in bits and pieces. Much appreciated.

- Jow
 
Without having seen your film, I'd say it's a safe bet. It might have kept it from getting into some festivals if you went that route. 90 minutes might be the max you'd want to do for your next project.

I'm pretty sure the black humor about celebrity deaths and tragic disasters is what kept us out of the festivals.

I agree that the runtime is intimidating tho. While the pacing overal could use some work, most people have said that it was mainly good.

I think there's only a few scenes that drag - mainly the hospital one.

- Jow
 
Saw you posted about this in the other thread about making features but thought I'd post my feedback here. Hope this doesn't come off as too harsh, it's just my honest reaction and generally I'd keep most of it to myself, but you seemed disappointed that you hadn't received a lot of feedback yet so here goes...

I'm pretty sure the black humor about celebrity deaths and tragic disasters is what kept us out of the festivals.

I agree that the runtime is intimidating tho. While the pacing overal could use some work, most people have said that it was mainly good.

I think there's only a few scenes that drag - mainly the hospital one.

Unfortunately I've got to disagree with you on this... the runtime combined with the pacing probably has more to do with not getting in festivals than any of the humor.

Here's the thing - I didn't even get to the celebrity deaths and tragic disaster jokes, or the hospital scene. I got through about 10 minutes before I gave up. That was only because when I wanted to give up around the 3 minute mark I told myself I should at least watch 10 minutes before giving an opinion. My guess is that most festival screeners wouldn't have even made it that far - they've got a lot of films to go through, and if you can't hook them in the first few minutes they're not going to waste time watching the whole thing.

That first 10 minutes should have taken 5 - or less.

In those 10 minutes you have two extended musical montages, including the opening credits which are way too long - especially considering we don't really know anything about the characters or story at that point. Neither one of the montages does much to move the story forward - it's just a bunch of random guys goofing off. I'm sure that's funny for you guys to watch, but for someone who doesn't know these people it's not very interesting.

And you've admitted you know the music isn't great, yet for some reason you've leaned really heavily on it in just the first ten minutes. If you don't have great music why make it such a focal point of the film?

As others have noted - the shaky camera work is pretty rough, as is the lighting, sound, and editing. The acting is at best adequate. I could get past all of that if it was really funny, but it just sort of dragged on without going anywhere and the jokes it had sort of just fell flat.

And that was just the first ten minutes. Maybe it gets better later in the film, but I have a feeling most people aren't going to get that far, especially not when they're watching it online and can click away.

From the other thread:

I never really had interest in shorts, personally because my mind works on a much more grand scale. I don't get excited by them, I'm not passionate about them. I'm a big fan of character and while it is entirely possible to have awesome characters in a short - I prefer to take awesome characters and put them in as many situations as possible - thus I'm feature minded. I like to exploit all their flaws and their best abilities and really define them in ways that are harder in a shorter format.

While a 2 hour run time on the internet seems to having people avoid watching my flick on this forum - I've premiered it in theaters to sold out audiences and standing ovations and DVD / Blu-ray sales that put us into profit within 3 days of going on sale

It's not a perfect film, but it's a hell of a lot better than anything I would do that's short format, I can promise that.

Now like I said, I don't want to be too harsh - I think it's awesome that you put together a feature and were able to make it profitable. I consider that a huge accomplishment, regardless of what I think of the film itself.

But the biggest thing that struck me right away is that it really needs a lot of editing, both up front in the writing stage and later in putting the final film together. You say it's better than what you could do in a short format, but that seems like the problem - you could improve a lot by learning how to make it work in short form first. The limited running time of a short forces you to get rid of anything that doesn't absolutely need to be there.

Think of it this way - you say you prefer to take awesome characters and put them in as many situations as possible. Learning to do that in a short film means you could do significantly more in a feature than you've done now. Imagine if you were able to take the material from that first ten minutes and make it work in three minutes instead. Then you keep working at that pace... now your feature film has 3x as many situations as you're doing now - and it moves at a much better pace to get a viewer swept up in the craziness of what's going on.

The best way to learn to do that is to work within the constraints of a short to pack as much material as you can into a limited running time. If you can't do that effectively in a short form, then I don't think you're going to be able to do it any better in a feature length project.
 
Unfortunately I've got to disagree with you on this... the runtime combined with the pacing probably has more to do with not getting in festivals than any of the humor.

Here's the thing - I didn't even get to the celebrity deaths and tragic disaster jokes, or the hospital scene. I got through about 10 minutes before I gave up. That was only because when I wanted to give up around the 3 minute mark I told myself I should at least watch 10 minutes before giving an opinion. My guess is that most festival screeners wouldn't have even made it that far - they've got a lot of films to go through, and if you can't hook them in the first few minutes they're not going to waste time watching the whole thing.

That first 10 minutes should have taken 5 - or less.

In those 10 minutes you have two extended musical montages, including the opening credits which are way too long - especially considering we don't really know anything about the characters or story at that point. Neither one of the montages does much to move the story forward - it's just a bunch of random guys goofing off. I'm sure that's funny for you guys to watch, but for someone who doesn't know these people it's not very interesting.

And you've admitted you know the music isn't great, yet for some reason you've leaned really heavily on it in just the first ten minutes. If you don't have great music why make it such a focal point of the film?

As others have noted - the shaky camera work is pretty rough, as is the lighting, sound, and editing. The acting is at best adequate. I could get past all of that if it was really funny, but it just sort of dragged on without going anywhere and the jokes it had sort of just fell flat.

And that was just the first ten minutes. Maybe it gets better later in the film, but I have a feeling most people aren't going to get that far, especially not when they're watching it online and can click away.

Now like I said, I don't want to be too harsh - I think it's awesome that you put together a feature and were able to make it profitable. I consider that a huge accomplishment, regardless of what I think of the film itself.

But the biggest thing that struck me right away is that it really needs a lot of editing, both up front in the writing stage and later in putting the final film together. You say it's better than what you could do in a short format, but that seems like the problem - you could improve a lot by learning how to make it work in short form first. The limited running time of a short forces you to get rid of anything that doesn't absolutely need to be there.

Think of it this way - you say you prefer to take awesome characters and put them in as many situations as possible. Learning to do that in a short film means you could do significantly more in a feature than you've done now. Imagine if you were able to take the material from that first ten minutes and make it work in three minutes instead. Then you keep working at that pace... now your feature film has 3x as many situations as you're doing now - and it moves at a much better pace to get a viewer swept up in the craziness of what's going on.

The best way to learn to do that is to work within the constraints of a short to pack as much material as you can into a limited running time. If you can't do that effectively in a short form, then I don't think you're going to be able to do it any better in a feature length project.

Thank you for the critique!

As far as the montages in the opening go - I agree. We lose a lot of momentum during those two scenes and it really kills the pace of the first 10 minutes or so. To answer your music question - we actually had commercial songs in the flick while editing and couldn't get the rights to them. The opening montage worked a lot better with the other song - but I agree that it does go on too long. Same with the food eating montage. As an after thought long after we completed the film and had it out to a lot of places I realized I should have just made the slo-mo eating montage the opening credits in one.

Now while I agree with those critiques - seems the only people who dislike the film are the ones who don't watch it all the way through. Now granted - My theory is always to hook people from moment "go!"

How the opening line of dialogue didn't at least capture your attention is beyond me. It might just not be your type of humor. As far as the writing goes - I don't wish to be combative - but you are the first person out of hundreds to say it needed work. I agree the editing on the back end needs to be tightened up as a whole on the film - as does the production in general - but keep in mind the entire crew was me on a camera and an inexperienced friend holding a boom mic. The "shaky cam" was what it was as used the mockumentry format to get away with a lot of problems over our 1 1/2 year production. So it was kind of necessary evil.

I *am* going to argue the short film point you make. I just can't put myself in that mindset. I realize and partially agree that it forces someone to step out of the creative box and really hone in on things, but some people just aren't wired that way, and I'm one of them.

Again - I appreciate the critiques and feedback - but really (and I don't mean to be a pissy internet kid) I can't fully take them to heart given that most of them are just feedback on the first 10 minutes. I do now keep in mind that I'll have to change up the opening a bit stronger (things like the montages) to keep the internet crowd hooked - but normal folk who watched on the screen and at home did react to things that you implied were only found funny by people close to the production.

Anywho,

thanks again!

- Jow
 
I've not seen your film, but I've got to agree with Donned. You've really, really, really got to hook your audience in the first few minutes, literally the very first scene. With nothing to distinguish the first few minutes from the other films that typically flows though here (and elsewhere) your film is going to get a quick and immediate "x".

Find your WOW moment and open with it, and do creative editing to make the film work,
 
Lol - our "Wow" moment is the first peice of dialogue that comes out the moment before we cut away from black.

I'm familiar with the opening wham bang. The reason he's citing it is because I wrote a whole spewing up about it on another thread. lol

- Jow
 
Again - I appreciate the critiques and feedback - but really (and I don't mean to be a pissy internet kid) I can't fully take them to heart given that most of them are just feedback on the first 10 minutes.

I get that - and in reality I am just some pissy internet critic who hasn't watched the whole film so I wouldn't expect you to take what I say too seriously. The best I can say is that it's my honest opinion, and hopefully it's of some use to you as one of many opinions on the film.

seems the only people who dislike the film are the ones who don't watch it all the way through.

Doesn't that kind of make sense though? I mean, if I'd liked it I would have watched it all the way through. How often do you stick with a film you don't like just to see if it gets any better at some point?

The truth is after I wrote my last post I felt bad that it was so negative based on just the opening scenes, so I tried skipping ahead to watch some more scenes throughout the film... unfortunately it all kind of felt the same to me.

Lol - our "Wow" moment is the first peice of dialogue that comes out the moment before we cut away from black.

How the opening line of dialogue didn't at least capture your attention is beyond me.

Thinking back on the opening scene the only thing I remembered was a line that was something like "we weren't always like this." I had to go back and watch it again because I honestly couldn't remember the opening line at all.

So think about this - I watched it, then I saw your comment about the celebrity death jokes, then I critiqued it and said I never even got to the celebrity death jokes, then you called attention to the opening lines, so then I go back and re-watch it a couple times and finally realize that's one of the celebrity death jokes you were referring to - and it hadn't even registered.

That's your wow moment? It's just not very memorable, nor very funny. It didn't catch my attention because it's not particularly attention-getting. It's a clever throwaway one-liner that has its place in the scene but acts primarily as a set up to the confrontation between the two characters. It's not much to hang the fate of your whole film on.

It might just not be your type of humor.

That's possible, although I tend to skew heavily towards 'inappropriate' humor. It's not the kind of humor I find lacking, it's the execution.

As far as the writing goes - I don't wish to be combative - but you are the first person out of hundreds to say it needed work.

I wouldn't take it as combative, and like I said - I'm just one guy on the internet. Feel free to ignore it, but I'll at least try to explain it a bit so you understand where I'm coming from.

I get what your intent was with the opening scene, I just don't think you achieved it. Typically the whole point of starting late in the story, and then going back to the beginning, is to hook people in with something exciting or intriguing. The interest this engenders in the audience buys you some breathing room to go back and tell the story at a more leisurely pace. I think it's actually a great device to use in situations where people might otherwise stop watching if you are trying to set up a complex story.

So my problem with the writing of the opening scenes has more to do with the lack of a hook rather than lack of 'wow'. You need to draw the audience in, give them a reason to stick around. You want the audience to ask themselves a question that they just have to know the answer to - and that can only be answered by watching the rest of your film.

What questions does your opening scene leave the audience with? Here's what I see:

"Who are these guys?" [a bunch of teenagers]
"What's going on here?" [they're having a party]
"Why are they acting this way?" [They're a bunch of teenagers. They're having a party.]
"How did things used to be?" [Pretty much the same, but without alcohol.]
"What's likely to happen next?" [Pretty much the same, but with alcohol.]
"Do I care?" [Not really. It's a bunch of teenagers. They party. Some are slightly more mature/responsible than others. The end.]

There's nothing there that the audience can't easily answer themselves, and the [answers] are pretty mundane. They don't suggest the possibility of anything too exciting to come, there's no real mystery, nothing too intriguing, nothing much we can't easily guess about the characters.

You've got a couple of jokes in there, but they aren't strong enough on their own to make up for the lack of anything else to hook the audience. It's not like we're laughing non-stop throughout that scene and hoping for more of the same. The opening scene just ends with the promise that we may eventually get to see how it came about - but it's just a few teenagers, having a relatively quiet party. Who cares how it came about?

So that's how I see it, make of it what you will.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top