Is this normal when it comes to editing?

H

harmonica44

Being a newbie, I find myself having to cut to an actors face in a scene, in order to cover up a mistake I made. Like for example, I don't like a shot I did when an actor says his line. It was from a bad angle and the camera shakes too much. Didn't notice it till later. So what I would do is cut to another actors face, while that actor talked, and just leave out the shot. In another scene, in one of the shots, it started raining, but had to cut out the rain shot in order, to match it up with the other shots. So I had to cut to another actor, during dialogue.

The problem with doing this is that you ruin the money shots of the dialogue. I have an ideal shot list, of who's face the camera is on, during what line, but finding myself having to cut away quite a bit, cause it didn't turn out that way in shooting.

Is this normal in filmmaking or am I suppose to get money shots only, and shouldn't need to have other choices in editing, cause those choices are not the money shots?

Even though I have storyboards, I have been shooting from different angles to get coverage. But perhaps I should focus on ONLY getting the storyboard shots, over and over, so therefore, I will have more good shots, that are money shots?
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
Please stop referring to your better takes as "money shots". There is a pre-established definition for that term that is not exactly what I think you intend.

I'll be damned, H44, you actually asked a good question. The reason it is a good question is because there is no correct answer.

Shooting for maximum coverage is a technique that is used to make editing easier.

Shooting for minimum coverage is a technique that is used to basically edit the movie before editing ever begins.

Both are valid options. But you'd better have a very experienced and talented cast & crew before even thinking of attempting the latter.

Shoot for maximum coverage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, it's entirely normal. Often, as a viewer, we want to see the reaction to the line being delivered rather than the delivery of it, since that then shows the relationship between the characters better than simply bouncing back and forth between the characters as they talk.

I would recommend, you edit the dialog (just as a piece of audio, then see what you end up with visually and adjust the visuals using L & J cuts and cutaway/insert shots to cover the bits you don't like as much. This is where the coverage comes into play. If it's more of an action beat, then as you place each shot, ask yourself what you want to see as an audience member and put that shot in next... assuming you've shot the coverage on set, you should have it in your footage somewhere.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
addendum: Editing is the time when you tell the story with the footage you have rather than what you intended to get. If something is absolutely necessary and you don't have it, it's time to arrange a reshoot... if it's not possible, then figure out a workaround with what you have access to footage or actor/location wise. The Script is now mostly irrelevant as are any intentions you had for footage to get to cut together. Work with what you captured, this is why editing is cinema... otherwise, it's just motion photography (I wrote a paper on this very topic once).

Check out the indie short "Radius" (Helmutt Kobler) and their extensive BTS footage for some of the creative workarounds they came up with to cover missing shots.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Are you shooting master shots? Shoot the whole scene with a master shot first, then shoot your other angles. This way if that close-up you had planned was blurry, and you don't have another, you can cut back to the master shot. The master shot is one full take of the scene at a medium/wide angle to show all action/actors. When you edit cut on top of your master.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Is this normal in filmmaking or am I suppose to get money shots only, and shouldn't need to have other choices in editing, cause those choices are not the money shots?

...But perhaps I should focus on ONLY getting the storyboard shots, over and over, so therefore, I will have more good shots, that are money shots?
Click to expand...

This is d@mn good advertising. I wish I'd thought of telling the world my short was full of money shots. It'll definitely get you a certain audience.

Out of pure curiosity, what is the title of your movie again?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I haven't thought of a good title yet actually. But there comes a point where cutting to another character to avoid not having enough coverage, is bad because you don't want the camera on that character at the time, but you are forced to have it that way, cause of not enough coverage. Like out of all the movies we think are well directed, how often was the director forced to cut away, to make up for mistakes? How much percent of the time, are the cutaways intended, as oppose to forced?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Who cares how many times an editor's cut away is unintentional? Why are you worried about stats when you could be making your movie? Sheesh. These questions get so ridiculous!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What you plan and what you get are often 2 different things... unfortunately, at these budgets, you get to deal with what you got at the end of the day, not what you planned to get.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've done alot of editing and still do alot of editing. I'd say about 50% of the time I'm covering up a problem either with editing or VFX. Even on a project with a budget there will be sound issues, bad lighting, poor framing, inconsistent acting, missing coverage, inconsistent blocking, moved props and set pieces, out of focus shots, dirty lenses, booms in the shot, people in frame, and so on.

A good editor can take good footage and make a good movie.
A great editor can take piss poor footage and a great movie.

As viewers we often don't see the problems or realize the magnitude of the them if the edits were good.

Editing isn't about making what you want, but making the best out of the crap you are given (much like life).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As a director, I don't feel the need to script every single shot. I prefer to let my editor work it out, so I give him as much material as I can. There are only a few select times when I have very specific shots that I know for sure I want in the final cut, and that I plan out far in advance.

The vast majority of the shots that end up in the final cut were NOT scripted or storyboarded or planned to be in the final cut. I shoot for coverage.

As an editor, I never feel like my director gives me enough material, but I work my magic and make it happen. I always wish he would've given me more coverage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top