You are not logged in. Please login or register.
If you have generic questions for the next time we do one of these, certainly leave them here. This was a really fun one.
Personally I'm looking forward to hearing Trey's whole "The day we had to turn off the Terrabyte" story 
Best one yet I reckon. Really good listening to this. I'm the same as Trey and Brian - hopeless at the vomit draft and I also spend a lot of time in the conception phase making notes.
I wouldn't quite agree with the idea that the first draft should come before you start thinking about the important stuff such as character spines, why you're telling the story and its themes - though I might have misunderstood this part - since the first draft might end up being something that you can't really use at all.
This one really felt like it was wrapping up just as it was getting started. I'd love for these to be a tad longer.
Yeah, just decide more in advance what the topic will be and let the discussion play out, whether it's 25 minutes or 30 minutes or 45 minutes. But I certainly wouldn't want it to devolve either into "What did you do/watch this week?" or "Top 5 greatest movies about dogs" or whatever.
I think the Final Cut Pro debacle might make for an interesting episode. I know nothing of the software, but I think the dynamic from insiders is interesting (as long as it's not a total bitch session, that is).
"Trends in visual effects" might also be good. What will define this period of movies in terms of effects look? Particle effects? Wonky green screen? Lifeless motion capture? (Like opticals defined the 30s and 40s, rear projection and bad models defined the 50s, avoidance of effects defined the 60s, etc.)
I'm also interested in things that still hinder the movie industry. It's always amazed me that it's apparently cheaper to hire a guy (plus orchestra) to score a whole movie than to license pop songs—even ones that weren't big hits. (If nothing else, it seems like old movie scores would be recycled.) It seems like even crappy low budget films have good visual effects, props, costumes, "film stock," and sound, so what do the Robert Rodriguezes of tomorrow or even the major productions still struggle with?
For topics that really get you guys in a grove, at the 30 minute mark just have Teague stop the conversation for a moment, play the end theme, then play the intro again and continue the topic.
As for topics, an all Trey stories episode would be fun. Maybe one with all the names replaced by, say, Dusty and Buddy to draw from an old George Carlin bit.
No, 30 minutes. You want more you pay them.
We'll come to your fucking house.
Which, the house where I do most of my fucking, or the house that is fucking that barn over there?
*pimpshades*
Last edited by Dave (2011-10-10 02:52:18)
So whatever happened to that whole, "Bunch of guys sitting around talking about movies that ends just sort of whenever it you know, ends?"
I liked that idea, that was a good idea.
Instead of Teague sitting there there like an over excited US president, just gyrating with anticipation, as he waits to get to push the big red button to end the show. The conversation was just getting good and Teague was like NOPE! Not happening, bye everybody!
My understanding of the intermission was a short, concise window into topics. Something for people who don't want to invest 2 hours learning about the abortion that was Howard the Duck for example.
What's wrong with that 30 minute conversation driving people back to the forum or mainsite to discuss further? Engaged traffic could lead to sponsorship by companies relevant to our interests (for example), or at the very least build the DiF community.
Cake. Eat it or keep it.
+1
So whatever happened to that whole, "Bunch of guys sitting around talking about movies that ends just sort of whenever it you know, ends?"
I liked that idea, that was a good idea.
Nothing happened to that idea -- that was never the idea.
The original idea behind the intermission was just to leave the recording going on our conversations in between movies, which would sometimes be about movies but sometimes just about whatever someone found funny on Twitter that week or whatever, or expanding on a point or an anecdote that didn't really have a place in the commentary where it came up but is worth talking about. It's meant to be free-form and whatever we end up talking about for 30 minutes, then we're done -- kind of like Kevin Smith's Smodcast.
The 30 minute hard-out is because we explicitly didn't want the conversation to go on and on until we decided it had ended, because if we did that we'd probably never find a good stopping point. As FixedR6 says, continuing the conversation is what the forum is for.
As FixedR6 says, continuing the conversation is what the forum is for.
Except it's hard to continue a conversation where you guys are forced to rush through your points like a marathon because of some arbitrary rule.
And call me crazy, as much as I like arguing on the forums with you guys, if I sit down to listen to a podcast that's advertised as 4 guys talk about how they write movies, I want to listen to a podcast about how 4 guys write movies; not listen to 30 minutes of hurried point making and squashed conversations only to have to come to a forum and read through a bunch of posts.
EDIT: Before any of you try to defend by saying that's not what it's advertised as, and I quote:
Teague lobs screenwriting questions at the panel to get the consensus of three years of movie analysis from our screenwriters.
Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2011-10-10 18:58:57)
It never really feels rushed to me, but the hard out often feels a little weird. I like the idea of recording the casual conversation spurred by something in the commentary, but I'd prefer it to be a little more focused than "Okay, let's do an Intermission. What should be talk about?"
It would be GREAT if, during a commentary, someone said "let's not get too far off topic, so let's save that for the Intermission" and then that became the topic later. But obviously that's not going to happen every time.
It would be GREAT if, during a commentary, someone said "let's not get too far off topic, so let's save that for the Intermission" and then that became the topic later. But obviously that's not going to happen every time.
My problem with that, while great in theory, and if it could work it would be awesome, the DiF crew have proven time and time again that the phrase "I'll save that for another time." is a death sentence for the entire concept. Specifically I'm thinking of Treys stories, but in general a lot of possibly really interesting talking points get lost to the ethers of time because they'll "save them for later."
What's to stop you from asking the question in the forum after the episode goes to air?
Aside from the fact that they usually get ignored, it's very different asking a question on a forum on the off chance they might answer it, versus having that topic naturally come up in a conversation where everyone's brain involved is already filled and running with that topic, then answering the question and having it build to something greater. That's the whole nature of a really good conversation... which is what I really really want to listen to (Which is also incredibly difficult to have in a text based medium where you have an hour to a day between responses *on average), but it seems lately that everytime DiF gets close to a good conversation like that, it's squashed with whatever excuse seems handy at the time (Staying on topic of the movie, time limits etc).
Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2011-10-10 21:09:11)
Here's how it is. We've decided to offer a 30-minute, non-film-specific podcast in addition to the film-specific commentary podcast we've been doing for three years now. Being non-specific, the topic is open to suggestion and considering we've only recorded five of them so far I think it's a little premature to start bemoaning some "tendency" for suggestions to go ignored. Give the thing a chance first.
I don't re-listen to the commentaries I'm on very often, personally, so if there's a topic in there that we moved on from and forgot about, we forgot about it. Feel free to remind us and suggest we cover it in an Intermission. That's part of what the show is here for. We're inviting topic ideas. And we're inviting continued conversation here in the forum.
What we're not inviting is demands that we spend even more of our time doing longer shows (a DIF session runs about 6 hours as it is), or that we discuss a topic this way instead of that way. If you don't like the format, if you don't like the topics, if you think that no conversation at all would be better than a 30 minute hard-out, then don't listen to the new show. We want to entertain, but we're not your dancing monkeys.
Uh...anyway...
Great podcast. I'm in the middle of writing a script right now, and this was very, very helpful.
Last edited by Doctor Submarine (2011-10-11 02:00:12)
+1
Thanks, that was the hope. If we got lists of questions about the writing process from folks, we'd definitely do another one of these.
Here's how it is. We've decided to offer a 30-minute, non-film-specific podcast in addition to the film-specific commentary podcast we've been doing for three years now.
Indeed and in those 3 years I've had a not inconsiderate amount of time to garner certain patterns in behavior amongst the Down in Front crew. The pattern to forget and ignore certain suggestions among them. So no, I don't think it's premature.
That's part of what the show is here for. We're inviting topic ideas. And we're inviting continued conversation here in the forum.
And I'm, suggesting, reasons why that may not be the best format for the kinds of subjects people want to see covered.
we're not your dancing monkeys.
No, but we are you audience, and like it or not without us you are nothing, so it might perchance be wise to at least entertain the suggestions discussed. And after all, that is what this entire site has always been about, no? To provide discussion. I never ordered you to change the format, I never demanded anything of you. I merely suggested ways in which the existing format could be improved to better suit what your listening audience really wants to hear, some people agreed, some people didn't, conversation occurred.
Just because you don't like the discussion or it's contents doesn't mean it's in any way a personal attack on you or the way things are run. Might be wise to keep that in mind.
Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2011-10-11 02:45:53)
No, but we are you audience, and like it or not without us you are nothing
You're out of line sunshine.
maul2 wrote:No, but we are you audience, and like it or not without us you are nothing
You're out of line sunshine.
Really? And a man on stage with an empty theater is a success?
It's a simple truth of this industry. I hardly thought that was the most controversial part of my post.
Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2011-10-11 02:48:06)
No, but we are you audience, and like it or not without us you are nothing
Get over yourself. You don't speak for our audience, you speak for you. When we start charging and you start paying, you can start playing the "you need me" card. Until then this kind of statement makes you sound ridiculous.
Your "suggestions" come off as demands because you're couching them in aggressive, accusatory language and ludicrous statements like "without us you are nothing." So what if we don't touch on the topics YOU want to hear? It's a free podcast. We're making the show WE want to make. Our audience is the people who want to listen to it. Simple as that. If that doesn't include you, then so be it.
+1
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
