Voile Noir

[swift]

[VV]44655380[/VV]

Allan and Yvan, two pilots, go on a mission to try to end the chaotic current polity...

[Erforce]

Hey, not so bad (not so).

As being sometimes a Video Editor Teacher, i would put 14/20 :D

I am truly destabilized to see Frenchs, making French grammar mistakes in subtitles ! WTF !

LOL

Apart that and obvious nonsenses, it's kinda pretty !

[VincentLaw]

I thought the anhedral angle on ALL of the airplanes was kind of silly. It would be bad for both landing clearance and stability. I'm guessing the person that made the video just thinks it looks cool. Also, all of those airplanes looked TERRIBLY draggy with all the things hanging off the outside. But if I ignore all that kind of stuff, it was amusing.

Edited January 20, 2013 by VincentLaw

[Yurgon]

"Kinda pretty", "amusing"? WTH is wrong with you guys? :music_whistling:

 

In less than 5 minutes, this video portrayed more character depth and showed more imagination than most Hollywood movies could dream to achieve with ten thousand times the budget and resources. IMHO this short film is simply amazing.

[Erforce]

I'm sorry Yurgon, it's also a matter of understanding what you really want to say, and the way you show it.

You can think i'm wrong, but i'm sure it would only get a good point on 3D graphics side, for students. Major studios will ask much more skills than that.

 

 

• For some of the technical details :
  

- Actor's direction is bad somehow. Between clichés (looking behind you with a Metro-2033-like oxygen mask, closing his eyes (what? Solar flare? oh noo his friend has died.. Poor guy, he feels sad...) and much more), They've got the Hero-Role, but NO-ONE would take their place.

- Shaking camera : Come-on, it's very badly used. Maybe they saw too much 24 and Jack Bauer. And this one is an obvious parametered one.

- Vertical 180° camera rotation. It's very rare, and now you know why. You MUST say something with non-conventional shot views. Even Charlie Chaplin knew that. Here, it's just for fun. Only one director on Earth do things for fun (especially transitions), and it's Georges Lucas. But watch StarWars again, and compare it to your vacation's movies you will be surprised.

- Gun shots... haaaa, Finally !!!! 14 years after Starship Troopers (Barbie & Ken going at war, you should know this movie FFS) I will try to draw my point :

]=)> ::::::::::: ]=)> ::::::: ]]==))>>

Good_ [bullets] ___Bad_________ Ugl.. Good guy again

 

Won't explain further.

- My god, did those 2 red fighters took a 25G turn?

- Why the bomber make a vertical climb with one engine, if his target is right below? (Solar Flare again?)

- 2000 feets? wow, but the ground is yet soooooooooooooooo far ;) (hey did you noticed? he crossed 2x 2000feets, and 10 frames before the cut, the thousands needle made a 180° jump :D)

- Ok, he's got an old bomber, all hydraulics. But, the stick seems sooo smooth, hmmm...

-Monster shaking camera on black-out. Why?

 

• General Aspect :
  

Ok, there's 2 or 3 Hitlers-like, gathered in one building.

=> Bad choice. WWII references is not something easy to play with.

Now you're a director. You think about one thing : "And If?"

Cast 2-3 guys, rent 2 Nazi SS costumes, give them a gun or 2.

Now drop them on a battlefield, ohh they're lucky, the Führer is next to them. "Pop", he's history. They die too. The End.

Elapsed time : 3m30 + 1mn30 End Titles (thank my family, etc...)

 

Would you say it's a good short-movie?

 

--------------

I hope you get my point. This film has kinda pretty graphics. All others aspects are non-existent.

I work now mainly in TV advertising edition(even sunday). Some has 3D, some has not. but in every cases (EVERY)you can't imagine how hard is it to get the Post-Production validated. You must tell something; "why this single glitter is here, it doesn't make sense, move it !"

I'm lucky, i do not touch SFX. And, no, Women are not really photoshoped. They're naturally "pretty" :D (good casting direction for once !)

 

Please, do not take it personnally (everyone). I was just trying to explain why some things should not be over-estimated. Even if it's a plane movie, and you like planes.

Do you think Gangnam Style deserves 1.2B+ views? why?

 

 

Edited January 21, 2013 by Erforce
drawing tweak

[Yurgon]

I'm sorry Yurgon, it's also a matter of understanding what you really want to say, and the way you show it.

You can think i'm wrong, but i'm sure it would only get a good point on 3D graphics side, for students. Major studios will ask much more skills than that.

 

Thanks for the explanation; I do understand much better now how you came to your conclusion.

 

If I looked at the short movie from the perspective of a TV professional (which I am not), I may see it the same way you do. But without really knowing the background of the production, I assume that it's probably something done either by people that are just enthusiastic about it, or students of some kind (probably both).

 

I can't begin to imagine how much work must have gone into this short movie. I believe I watched a making-of video after I first saw "Voile Noir" and was very impressed with the amount of detail they put into it not just in terms of CGI but also when creating real world shots that were later integrated with the CGI components.

 

While I agree that some of the shots may not have been top-grade, I still think such a movie is a work of passion and as such deserves more than the casual "quite nice, but I've seen better" remarks that, in most cases, compare a low-budget production to million-dollar Hollywood movies.

 

What really makes me crazy is to see sloppy CGI and bad effects in said million-dollar productions. And quite often, the story is so bad, the consequences to the characters so meaningless, I couldn't care less whether the hero lives or dies. But "Voile Noir" managed to spark an interest that lots of high budget productions couldn't. That's why I'm eager to defend it or at least get you to say why you think it doesn't deserve such praise. :)

[Yurgon]

Somewhat OT: Speaking of sloppiness... I just watched the second episode of BBC's Sherlock (great show!). At some point, Sherlock checks a website for some info:

 

 

It's a bit hard to tell from the screenshot, but the URL in the address bar is something like C:\http\onlinenews\online-news.html

 

In a show that's all about the details, that's a rather sloppy mistake (it's a local address; apparently the production crew copied the website onto the harddrive of "Holmes"' computer and opened it from there for the scene). It would have been really simple to fake the URL so that it looked real (http://example.com/news.html), but in a later scene the show repeats the mistake.

 

It's not a big thing, but for a production of this size, they could have done better (seriously, it just takes a minute or two to fake the address bar, and there are multiple ways to do it).

 

Another thing, witnessed in the same episode, and also witnessed in most US shows: Whenever Germans appear, they talk like British or American actors that have learned to say a sentence or two in German. It's correct from a grammatical point of view, and the pronunciation is not entirely wrong, but it's still fake.

 

That's something I really don't understand, because Hollywood (as well as London) must be crawling with unemployed German actors that would be readily available for small scenes like the ones I'm complaining about.

 

To slightly veer this towards the topic: If such mistakes happened in a small, fan-made (or enthusiast-made, or student-made) production, I'd call it a simple negligence, but in a big production, that's really sloppy because they have all the resources available to avoid such mistakes.

[Erforce]

It's a bit hard to tell from the screenshot, but the URL in the address bar is something like C:\http\onlinenews\online-news.html

 

Haha, good one ! i really laughed at this one.

Don't be fooled, The Editor, Director, and Post-Producer were aware and admitted this joke. Or didn't wanted to spend more money to SFX this, as it's looks like a real screen (they'd screwed on set).

 

Sometimes you can also wonder about the mental stability of thoses persons :

In a Science-Fiction serie like Stargate Universe, what's the point of insulting all Frenchs people? They were aware of this.

 

----

I see you got my point Yurgon.

I admit it's very hard for me nowaday to "love" a movie. Especially Animations (Disneeeeeeey) because they have entire "free-potential" but do nothing good with it, and 3D movies where Directors/Producers seems not to understand that human eyes, when looking in a third dimension reality, try to focus what it's actually targeting. In 3D movies, apart ripping you more money, force your eyes to see something specific even if you don't want to. (Avatar is the king in this world) resulting in a free(you've paid it somehow) headache.

 

Voile Noir has interesting points, and it's clear it has "passionate" origins.

 

more about Million $$$ movies : it costs million because this world is almost sick. Everybody tries to earn a maximum.

I see, sometimes, one editor, taking 1000€ PER DAY (8h) just because he's famous. and he's just an editor.

in movies, generally the post-production takes 2x the production time(filming). look at the end titles now. think everybody has worked at least 3months... it's crazy.

I hope you understand more MGM bankruptcy ;)

Edited January 22, 2013 by Erforce