That explains it!!!

[Run&Gun]

I was looking through the channel guide on the satelite a little while ago and saw that the new Katrina doc was on HBO, so I flipped over and started watching, the first thing that I noticed was how BAD the majority of the interviews looked (I'm not talking about the news footage), then I just saw on the internet that it was a Spike Lee production. I'm not opposed to doc's being "gritty" and artsy and rough, but come on, I've seen high school kids shoot better looking, better composed stuff.

[Baltimore Shooter]

I noticed the same thing. People framed to look one way (ex. camera right) but looking the other way (ex. camera left), in other words, the look space was in the opposite direction (hope that made sense), poor framing on 2 shots and 3 shots, jump cuts, little to no b-roll to cover the talking heads that go on and on, etc. The lighting for Wynton Marsalis was well done, as were a few others but most weren't any better than we would do when shooting documentary interviews. Same kind of thing he did w/ "4 Little Girls".

I've lost a lot of respect for Spike Lee since he sued Spike TV for using the name "Spike". Like no one before him was named Spike or something and everyone named Spike since Spike Lee has to pay him.

I got a big laugh when the son of Spike Jones said he should sue Spike Lee because Spike Lee stole his name from Spike Jones.

Warren

[Buck]

So what you're saying is his camera work makes vj's look good?

[Shootblue]

Breaking the rules has to be done very well to look good. I guess that didnt happen with this.

[Freddie Mercury]

Haven't seen it. I would think the subject matter would be compelling enough that you could overlook technical shortcomings. It must have been pretty bad. That's a shame considering the story being told.

[Baltimore Shooter]

I would think the subject matter would be compelling enough that you could overlook technical shortcomings. It must have been pretty bad.

Compelling subject matter is no excuse for poor framing, rambling soundbites, jump cuts, bites placed where there is nothing to say - such was the case of some guy they interviewed (in a CU wearing a red t-shirt in the first half hour or so), etc. There was no excuse for this. Like I said, he did the same thing w/ his doc "Four Little Girls".

Warren

[Bandit]

kudos to spike for using unconventional framing..... i don't think i'll be ripping off his idea any time soon, but i thought it helped give the doc a less news-ish feel....

[OmegaRed]

And thus begins the debate about whose e-wang is bigger than Spike Lee's real wang.

I'm going to enjoy this one.

And....GO!

[Run&Gun]

Breaking the rules has to be done very well to look good. I guess that didnt happen with this.

My thoughts exactly. I've used weird framing before, i.e., somone looking to the same side they are framed instead of into the "look room", but there was something compelling in the background and it was a wide, low shot that looked cool. This stuff was just bad looking no matter how you spin it, but I'm sure it will be accepted and praised because it has an established, big name attached to it.

[circle7]

I haven't seen it, but have deep respect for his ability to compose and direct. Ever see "she's gotta have it"?

Have you seen Hitchcocks docs on the holocost? not much for composition, but the story is dark, moving, powerfull; it definatly leaves the viewer disturbed, and should.

I think Spike Lee was in Italy during the event, so he was assembling from a wide spectrum of source material over which he had no control during aquisition, like Hitchcock... what, it doesn't work for you?

[Freddie Mercury]

And thus begins the debate about whose e-wang is bigger than Spike Lee's real wang.

I'm going to enjoy this one.

And....GO!

That doesn't make any sense.

[OmegaRed]

That doesn't make any sense.

I've learned that you can't treat every situation as a life-and-death matter because you'll die a lot of times. Write that down.

[Freddie Mercury]

I've learned that you can't treat every situation as a life-and-death matter because you'll die a lot of times. Write that down.

Well, that clears things right up. :confused:

[exassignedphotog]

I've noticed photography on national stories and on the networks have taken a nose dive into the crapper for the last 2 years or so and it's only getting worse.

[Run&Gun]

I've noticed photography on national stories and on the networks have taken a nose dive into the crapper for the last 2 years or so and it's only getting worse.

Could be stuff produced by outside co's that don't want to pay the going rate for experienced crews and the only one's that will work for that rate are hacks looking for an in.

It's been said too many times to count: "You get what you pay for". My Mom has a sign up next to her desk at work that reads,"The bitternes of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is gone". And I think that can be applied to any bussines.

[OmegaRed]

I've noticed photography on national stories and on the networks have taken a nose dive into the crapper for the last 2 years or so and it's only getting worse.


Hmm...a trend perhaps? Could be that television isn't making as much money as it used to, so going cheap is the way to go? Hmm? What might happen in the years to come when TV becomes even less relevant due to the internet?

I'll say what I've been saying all along: The revolution is coming. Get ready or get out.

[newz]

Hmm...a trend perhaps? Could be that television isn't making as much money as it used to, so going cheap is the way to go? Hmm? What might happen in the years to come when TV becomes even less relevant due to the internet?

I'll say what I've been saying all along: The revolution is coming. Get ready or get out.


Uh...have you checked the year end reports from your owners? Many keep quoting tv as being "more profitable than ever". At least ours does. I guess it's "more profitable than ever" on the backs of it's employees. The revolution is here. It's called 'you do more, we pay you less'!

[Baltimore Shooter]

Hmm...a trend perhaps? Could be that television isn't making as much money as it used to, so going cheap is the way to go? Hmm? What might happen in the years to come when TV becomes even less relevant due to the internet?

I'll say what I've been saying all along: The revolution is coming. Get ready or get out.

Oh please... Dude, get a clue! Moree people, adults AND youngsters, get their news and entertainment from television than from the internet. That was confirmed in an article in Medialife.com I was going to copy & paste the article, but I accidently deleted it before I could do it. You might find it if you go to their site.

A few months ago, someone said everyone will be wartching video in their iPods. Well, in another article, they found that they didn't want to watch programs on a 2 inch screen and that TELEVISION is where they watch their programming. OmegaRed, you must be a follower of MR, because "The revolution is coming" is exactly the kinds of stuff he'd say.

As I said, GET A CLUE!

Warren

[OmegaRed]

OmegaRed, you must be a follower of MR, because "The revolution is coming" is exactly the kinds of stuff he'd say.

As I said, GET A CLUE!

Warren

Warren, I swear to god, you need a new line.

I'm a student of common sense. More people have the internet than ever before. And your stations are starting to produce for the internet. Hell the newspaper in our small little market is shooting video for the web now.

I just had a training seminar last week on how to produce, provide and upload elements for the web. Let me stress, before you hop on and call VJ, that it WASN'T A VJ SEMINAR.

Has your station hired new people to help with your website? Or do they all have your attitude and are just ignoring this thing that billions of people access each day hoping that it'll go away? Because if they haven't hired people for your website, who the hell do you think is going to be doing the work for it? Raise your hand, its you.

The web is cheaper and producing for it is much easier than paying upwards of 25 people to make sure a newscast hits the air. I'm by no means saying its better, I'm saying thats the way it is.

The revolution doesn't mean TV is going away Warren, it means its going to be second to the internet. The 6pm news is going to supplement the web. What company, in their right mind, is going to not produce for the web when its thousands of dollars cheaper to produce per story than your newscast is?

People want to know NOW, not at 6pm. Start thinking like that, and you'll go places my friend.

[OmegaRed]

And also, can we please stop saying MR and VJ when we're referencing anything that YOU'RE not used to? You're confusing the people that actually come here for information.

[Baltimore Shooter]

Like I said Omega, get a freakin' clue...

Why don't you do some investigating and see what actually is going on instead of what you wish would happen.

It's like a Grizzly Bear crapped in your brain.

Warren

[Tippster]

Nice thing about video, whether it's destined for air OR the web, is it still needs to be captured by.... us.

[OmegaRed]

Like I said Omega, get a freakin' clue...

Why don't you do some investigating and see what actually is going on instead of what you wish would happen.

It's like a Grizzly Bear crapped in your brain.

Warren

Like I said Warren, get a NEW LINE.

Good comeback, though, full of personal insults and no actual information.

How bout you send me some links to actual information? Oh wait, thats right, you "accidentally" deleted it. But alas, your browser has a history, you could just go in there to find it. Actually, I'm beginning to understand now. You don't actually understand how the internet works or can be used.

And what I wish would happen is that you stop coming in here saying nothing is going to happen to our medium and that everything is going to stay exactly the same. When, in fact, big changes are coming very soon.

How about you stop WISHING things would stay the same when they're clearly changing right before your very eyes. Or maybe you don't actually see the changes, because every time someone at your station tries to bring them up, you curl into the fetal position, plug your ears and say "I can't hear you..lalalalalala". Personally, if I was the one that had to break this to you and you gave me the attitude you're famous for, I'd probably just decide its easier to lose you when the changes come rather than have to force feed you important information.

The web is the future. Prove otherwise, with sentences that don't involve "Get a clue" or "He's a MR follower, BURN HIM".

And seriously, a Grizzly bear crapping in my brain? Are you freakin' serious? How old are you?

[Dink]

Could be stuff produced by outside co's that don't want to pay the going rate for experienced crews and the only one's that will work for that rate are hacks looking for an in.

That's not the problem. The networks get their video from the same place they have always gotten their video. Domestically, that means they get it from local stations. Thus, if the quality of domestic stories really is declining, then it's more likely a result of declining quality at local stations as photogs are pressed to shoot and edit more stories per day while also running a live truck.

Internationally they're also getting their video the same way they always have: from anybody who can provide it to the news services or directly to the networks. Thus you have a lot of video coming from people who were not too long ago complete amateurs in comparison to American, British or Australian network shooters. When you see crappy video from Iraq, it's probably from a local who never really learned how to shoot well, or perhaps from one of these wannabe news agencies or stringers there on the cheap who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. When you see video from actual network freelancers, it will be good, because network producers generally don't hire ass clowns to travel overseas (at least not more than once).

The revolution doesn't mean TV is going away Warren, it means its going to be second to the internet. The 6pm news is going to supplement the web.

No, probably not. Television and the Internet will be more integrated, so that eventually you won't know where one ends and the other begins.

I also find it highly unlikely that in the interim, before the full integration, that television will supplement the Internet. It'll be the other way around. Most people are passive in their news watching, preferring to be fed a preassembled program than to have to wade through copious amounts of information. They want to sit back and be fed a show. Many people THEN go to the 'net to find more information on the stories that interest them, making the Internet a supplement to the television program.

Eventually the two will be so integrated that it will be impossible to say one is supplementing the other. Television stations will move toward providing entire preassembled programs through broadband, which viewers will then be able to disassemble or fast forward through as they see fit to watch only what's of interest to them.

I think Warren can relax, though, because as broadband video improves in speed and quality (which it will), viewers will demand better quality than VJs will deliver.

[OmegaRed]

No, probably not. Television and the Internet will be more integrated, so that eventually you won't know where one ends and the other begins.


Yeah well I didn't want to blow Warren's mind.

[Baltimore Shooter]

How bout you send me some links to actual information? Oh wait, thats right, you "accidentally" deleted it. But alas, your browser has a history, you could just go in there to find it. Actually, I'm beginning to understand now. You don't actually understand how the internet works or can be used.

Actually, it was too old to be in the History, so I went to MediaLifeMagazine.com and found it and a few other things. Here they are:

Poll: Mobile video leaves teens and young adults cold
Mobile video may seem poised to be the next tech craze, but it looks like not even younger demographics are ready to move their viewing to the small screen. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released yesterday finds that around 50 percent of adults 18-24 are indifferent to watching TV on a "third screen," and 40 percent of teens 12-17 feel the same. While 40 percent of the young adults demo expressed willingness to watch content on their computers, only 7 percent would do so on an iPod and 9 percent on a cell phone. Among teens, the numbers were roughly doubled, with 14 percent interested in watching TV on cell phones and 17 percent on iPods. Still, 43 percent of teens said that they would not watch video content on any of those screens, and 51 percent of young adults said the same. The group most engrossed by cell phone video was girls 12-14; 20 percent expressed interest in cell phone viewing and 25 percent in iPod viewing. Respondents told the Times that the high price and low quality of such offerings is what keeps them away.
---------------------------------------------------

Study: Computers now No. 2 electronic media at home
It should come as no surprise to anyone not living in cave for the past five years that Americans use computers more than any other form of electronic media except TV. But for cave dwellers, an update: A study released this week by Ball State University's Center for Media Design confirmed that trend. The study finds that people use computers the most at work, where it is the most popular electronic media device. TV watching is still No. 1 at home, radio listening is No. 1 in the car. Study organizers followed 350 people in Indiana for a day to examine their habits. Some other interesting findings: Computer users devote 56 percent of their time surfing the web versus 44 percent offline. Workers ages 25-64 use computers more than 18-24s, and men spend about 137 minutes per day on their computers, about the same as the 134 minutes for women.
---------------------------------------------------------
Newswise, the web plays second fiddle, The traditional media outlets still dominate
This is too long to post here, so here's the link - http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_6399.asp
--------------------------------------------------------
So there you go.
Warren

[Frank McBride]

I think we can consider this thread officially hijacked.

A question for Omega Red: How did you become the all-knowing Poobah? You preach and command and don't listen to a thing. For example:


"Write that down."

"Get ready or get out."

"I'm saying thats the way it is."

"Start thinking like that, and you'll go places my friend."

"You're confusing the people that actually come here for information."

It's pointless to engage someone who spews fortune-cookie proverbs and thinks he knows it all.

Baltimore Shooter: Grizzly Bear crapped in his brain...classic. Do you suppose he forgot what his signature was?

[Spacey]

Hear hear Frank.
Okay, I'll take my seat now.

Perhaps all the while concentrating on what was being said, whoever just shot what looked natural to him. Suprisingly, we dont have conversations where we are constantly locked in on right below the hairline and above the chest. Our eyes are constantly wandering, and mis-framed could mean they want us to see behind him. Although, from what I've seen, some parts look like they hired Uncle Guido who does birthday parties with his Hi8.

Which only proves...
"You can give Speilberg a Hi8 and it'll look good. You can give Uncle Guido who does parties a Panavision Millenium, and he'll complain about why the Zeiss primes wont zoom."


Albeit, I like the lighting for the interviews on "Four Little Girls" - but I didnt like the look, too Super16 / Tube camera-ish. We have to remember that we're two seperate entities, and that we have our way of doing things. One may think one is right and the other is wrong, and then the other the complete oppisite.

[American lost in Canada]

I just got done watching the Spike Lee doc on Katrina, and I am not sure what the you guys are worried about. I was way to captivated by the story and the horrific conditions of what happened during Katrina to worry about the framing of the interviews. I reminded myself to watch for it and when I saw what you were complaining about, I did not care how it was framed. Sure it was 'technically' wrong but the framing is not at issue, the tragedy of the disaster and the response of the BushCo administration was what was important.

I did not see a problem with the framing, and I agree that Spike wanted us to hear the people not wonder why the shadow was on the wrong side.

Great film.

[Baltimore Shooter]

I reminded myself to watch for it and when I saw what you were complaining about, I did not care how it was framed. Sure it was 'technically' wrong but the framing is not at issue, the tragedy of the disaster and the response of the BushCo administration was what was important.

I did not see a problem with the framing, and I agree that Spike wanted us to hear the people not wonder why the shadow was on the wrong side.

Problem is, the poor framing, etc. distracted the viewer from the message. Sure, the tragedy of the disaster was the important part, but you lose those important parts when you get distracted by oddball framing and other such elements.

Warren

[American lost in Canada]

Not all the interviews had 'oddball' framing. Most were traditional, just a few were non-traditional. Either way, I enjoyed the doc and was not put off at all by the framing.

[Baltimore Shooter]

It gets worse. This from Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060911/tv_nm/spikelee_dc):

Spike Lee develops post-Katrina drama for NBC
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Spike Lee will follow his documentary on Hurricane Katrina with a scripted drama for NBC set in New Orleans.

Titled "NoLa," after the local slang for the Big Easy, the project is a multicultural ensemble exploring the post-Katrina lives of New Orleans residents from different social and economic backgrounds.

"It's a show about the city trying to rebuild itself and the people who are trying to put their lives together," said Lee, who will travel to New Orleans this week with screenwriter Sid Quashie to meet with residents.

Lee began thinking about a TV series set in post-Katrina New Orleans while he was filming his HBO documentary "When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts." Like the documentary, "NoLa" will be infused with humor. Lee is set to executive produce and direct the project if NBC decides to turn the script into a pilot.

"It's our goal to make great cinema for television," Lee said of his approach to the show.

Stylistically, he will pay homage to the great tradition of Italian neorealism, a 1942-52 movement in Italian cinema that involved such acclaimed filmmakers as Vittorio De Sica and Roberto Rossellini and spawned such films as De Sica's "The Bicycle Thief" and "Miracle in Milan."

Set among the poor and working class and filmed on location, Italian neorealist films contend mostly with the difficult economic and moral conditions of postwar Italy, reflecting the changes in the Italian psyche and the conditions of everyday life: defeat, poverty and desperation.

Lee is taking similar approach to the stories of Katrina survivors who are picking up the pieces of their shattered lives.

"NoLa" would be filmed on location in New Orleans.

"We don't have to build sets," Lee said wryly. "Things there still look like the city's been bombed out."

Taking another page from the book of Italian neorealism, Lee plans to add to the authentic feel of the show by having some of the most colorful people featured in the documentary -- like Phyllis Montana LeBlanc -- written into the script as supporting characters and appear as fictional versions of themselves.
---------------------------------------

Warren