Why exactly does this look amateur???

There are plenty of big Hollywood productions that use deep depth of field. The SFX look pretty piss-poor, though, and I'm imagining the action is pretty cheesy and completely lacking any real tension. Plus, the acting is probably horrible. And that cinematography is rather uninspired. I'm obviously just basing all of this on what I see in the trailer; I could be wrong.

eivashchenko said:

I'm trying to learn what doesn't work for filmmaking, as well as what does work, and this video seemed a good example of not working.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSh2aK8LC9E&feature=related

I watched pretty much the first ten minutes of this video, and gave up. I simply couldn't suspend my disbelief and get into the movie. I think it's from the amateur look, but I'm not entirely sure why it is amateur. I'd have to give it to the infinity depth of field, the insane amount of blue in it, and something about the camcorder-esque smoothness of it.

But I've seen scenes with a huge DOF and still look professional and cinematic. As well, I've seen very blue-tinted videos and they weren't jarring either.

Any professional opinions on why this isn't quite working?

Also, I don't mean to be a critic; I am honestly trying to learn.

Click to expand...

To me what makes this look amateur is just the lack of proper lighting, excessive blue / black tint.
Also it might be shot in something else than 24p.

calif0rnian said:

Also it might be shot in something else than 24p.

Click to expand...

To my untrained eye this looks like it might be the problem.

Also poor lighting, bad SFX and repetitive locations...

It starts with a terrible little animated ninja shot, then goes down hill from there.

You've got the worst acting ever, horrible stunts and fight scenes. REALLY bad CGI not to mention some of the CHEESIEST titling ever

But bottom line: for me it was the lighting. It doesn't matter how dark a set is suppose to be, you should still be able to see the characters face. Have them walk into a shaft of light here or there, anything. Forget dof, this was just so dark.

it's called 'alien vs ninja', what were you expecting lol

The FX don't look too bad. My gut tells me it's rife with crummy acting. But overall, I'd be willing to give this movie a chance. Martial arts, hot asian chicks, aliens, excellent start!

What you're experiencing is the stigma of "video".

The frame-rate's probably 29.97, and for years we've associated the look with Home Video, which ultimately means "amateur". However, that production cost a considerable amount of money and has gained a rather large cult following already.

There's actually nothing wrong with the image otherwise. In fact, for a low budget production, it's got some decent practical effects and action. I've wanted to check that feature out for a while.

The rest is subjective: composition is taking second place to capturing action, which is normal.

Video frame rates and blur, etc, typically just make certain things look a lot more amateur than they really are.

I'll take the Alien v. Ninjas over THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbLBXlKshfA&NR=1

Notice the failed attempts at humor (the trailer uses the same joke 3x!) and lame fight choreography -- if you're making a martial arts movie, it worth having people that actual KNOW martial arts.

Kholi said:

What you're experiencing is the stigma of "video".

The frame-rate's probably 29.97, and for years we've associated the look with Home Video, which ultimately means "amateur". However, that production cost a considerable amount of money and has gained a rather large cult following already.

There's actually nothing wrong with the image otherwise. In fact, for a low budget production, it's got some decent practical effects and action. I've wanted to check that feature out for a while.

The rest is subjective: composition is taking second place to capturing action, which is normal.

Video frame rates and blur, etc, typically just make certain things look a lot more amateur than they really are.

Click to expand...

I think it's awesome that I as an utter noob noticed the framerate also Makes me happy

Im not a big follower of this genre..still amateurish?? NO..looks reasonably well done. Hell, look at Ahhnold he is not a great actor yet look at his success. It takes ALL elements of a movie to come together to work.

This teaser look great for the subject matter. I would not label it amateur

The frame rate doesn't exactly help, but I think the piss-poor cinematography and VFX are what makes it look really bad. Remember Reverie the first video we ever saw from the 5D, shot by Vincent LaForet? That was 30p (not even 29.97) and it looked a hell of a lot more cinematic than this.

eivashchenko said:

I'm trying to learn what doesn't work for filmmaking, as well as what does work, and this video seemed a good example of not working.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSh2aK8LC9E&feature=related

I watched pretty much the first ten minutes of this video, and gave up. I simply couldn't suspend my disbelief and get into the movie. I think it's from the amateur look, but I'm not entirely sure why it is amateur. I'd have to give it to the infinity depth of field, the insane amount of blue in it, and something about the camcorder-esque smoothness of it.

But I've seen scenes with a huge DOF and still look professional and cinematic. As well, I've seen very blue-tinted videos and they weren't jarring either.

Any professional opinions on why this isn't quite working?

Also, I don't mean to be a critic; I am honestly trying to learn.

Click to expand...

I say that the reason it come across as amateur isn't in the fact that the premise is too far fetched it just has really poor direction and that ugly blue-tinted color.

I VERY MUCH like the idea of deconstructing why a film "looks" the way it does, and hope to see many more of this kind of question posed.

Neither wikipedia nor IMDB cite a budget, however, reviews on IMDB repeatedly remark on it's low budget, which in and of itself really doesn't answer the question, it's just a contributing factor, surely.

From the trailer some of the scenes look fine, while others look like the camera is "too close" to the subjects.
I'll guess for a more cinematic look a director will back off and zoom in a wee more.
It's probably a VERY subjective skill that definitely alters some of the perspectives.

The image at 0:20 is absolutely horrible. Why? Probably because the cinemetographer centered the face to the frame?

What's the shot term for the camera angles turned on a slant? Dutch Angle is it? Well, like any spice, a little goes a long way. Too much is too much.

And that fist spark shot at 0:40 is unforgivably cheezy. Someone get me a baked potato, please.

I agree that too much of the trailer looks like it's in the same (inexpensive) forest environment and utilizes too many of the same shot compositions regarding angles, distances and themes.

And the SFX at 1:09... yeah. That.

So, this is roughly a Predator knockoff.
Then lettuce see the trailer for Predator: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-d8-t3W6Ac
(Wacky, eh?!)
@ 0:10 actor on left third, cinematographer not afraid to tighten in a little and cut off the top of Arnold's head, got cigar smoke in there for environmental interest (like rain, fog or breath condensation this is surprisingly a bigger thing than most appreciate) DOF background is blurred distinguishing the foreground.

Up to 40 seconds in note the number of shots where the camera is below normal eye, even shoulder, level. This is done to make your subjects seem "larger than life!".
I recall quite a few eye level shots (but Dutched!) in the NvsA trailer.
Also, the scenery and subject changes quite a bit in this trailer. This gets more to an editing thing rather than a cinematography thing, though.

0:41 Billy @ 1/3 of frame, Ramirez @ 2/3. Note triangle of perspective between the two actors and the camera. Also DOF fore/background distinction/definition.

0:43 Dutch @ 2/3 frame and cutoff at forehead. DOF fore/background. Note: GET THE [EXPLETIVE] CAMERA IN ON THOSE FACES!

0:46 Dillon @ 2/3 frame. Blah blah blah, I'll shaddap about it already.

Another HUGE advantage as far as trailers go is that Predator can utilize dialog whereas NvsA cannot. It's almost impossible to read subtitles in a trailer.

Okay, so watching the NvsA trailer again it's largely issues of too much of the same scenes construct, too much shot within 2' or a meter at eye level, no DOF utilization, poor framing, night shots are just... difficult, no environmental effects or interest, SFX and alien costume suck, and the editing is just bad.

Looks god awful, but I must give them one point for this inventive "how to dodge an alien tendril" trick.



Oh, the jokes are endless...

Ninja Beaver vs. Alien Appendage!

chilipie said:

The frame rate doesn't exactly help, but I think the piss-poor cinematography and VFX are what makes it look really bad. Remember Reverie the first video we ever saw from the 5D, shot by Vincent LaForet? That was 30p (not even 29.97) and it looked a hell of a lot more cinematic than this.

Click to expand...

I think it's true that the cinematography and special effects are bad but I'm pretty confident that the reason that it struck the OP as being 'amateur' is the frame rate.

I think the frame rate still poses a problem in Reverie but it's one that's disguised by DOF, excellent lighting and the fact that there was no narrative structure to Reverie, so he could cut the shots as soon as the eye becomes adjusted to the focus. But I think a lot of people would watch that film and notice the 'amateur' feel as a result of the frame rate.

the constant use of Action essentials 2 effects doesnt really help. the effects are straight out of the box and dont vary much. the sound effects are too cheesy. all the other stuff people have said i wont repeat but the CTB is used wayyyyy too much, it makes it look more like a set than the forest. i think the CGI wasnt actually that bad, but in the movie may be used excessively so will spoil the effect. it doesnt look like an interesting story.. its just special effects boom boom boom. the fact that its been done before so many times really badly makes me think it will be crap. but i would still watch it as its not the worst indie trailer ive ever seen...

If I'm allowed to, I'm going to disagree on the cinematography:

It's exactly what it needs to be for the content. It's not a huge movie, not even on the page. It's a very contained all-out-interplanetary-fist-fight-with-flare. They're not using natural light, it's lit with large lamps and graded for the effect. And, the composition is for the action, and this is how action is covered in my experience.

The only thing distracting is the 29.97, and I'm almost positive that they did that so that it could be converted to 23.98 and 25P for territorial distribution flexibility. A lot of foreign outlets are 29.97 only.

I also like the range of colors in the image, great use of it for effect.

yup, I like the trailer, but it feels like a Power Rangers episode, which I attribute to the frame rate like others.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't almost all television shows and music videos shot at 30FPS? I don't hear anyone claiming that "Lost" looks "amatuerish".

Actually, I have no idea what frame rate "Lost" was shot at, but I'm quite confident that there are a ton of television productions that look terrific, that are shot at 30FPS.

It's the cinematography, camerawork, acting, choreography, VFX, editing, everything BUT frame rate.