How long should you give books, movies or TV shows a chance before giving up?
For TV shows, I would say to wait until episode 6 or 7, for a few reasons.First, it takes a show a while to find its "voice". A show is sold to a network based on its pilot alone, a single episode written by one or two people. The actual business of week-to-week TV production requires a writing staff of 8-12, with characters and themes that can be revisited again and again without getting boring. So it takes a while for that group to write with a consistent style, discover the best and most interesting qualities of those characters and storylines from the pilot, etc. etc.Second, most TV series with fall premieres go into production around mid-summer, so they produce around six or seven episodes without any audience feedback. After a show premieres, showrunners can gauge audience reaction to the initial episode. They can give the audience more of what they seemed to respond to and tone down what they didn't enjoy. So the premiere really speeds up that process of finding the show's voice and you tend to see a significant quality bump around episode 6 or 7.Of course, I'm not recommending that you watch a show you hate for 7 episodes just in case. If I don't like a show after the second or third ep, I tend to check out the reviews on the AV Club (which gives letter grades that I can use to get an idea of a show's quality without being spoiled). If the reviews for the 6th or 7th episode onward are in the B+ or above range, I'll usually keep watching and be rewarded for the time I put in to the show.
Are TV shows like Live PD allowed to film people without their permission?
There are many circumstances where people are “newsworthy” and are allowed to be filmed with out permission. Example: Being detained by police gives you rights not to be filmed. As soon as you start to fight the police … you instantly lose the right.But these legal questions have been worked out over the years and studios abide by them,BTW: I have a friend whose job is to get signed permissions for a well-know cop reality show. He is THE MOST CHARMING fellow you ever met, and you’d just want to sign anything he asked. Hah!
What are your opinions/thoughts on my Short Film?
This movie is a good start, and it seems you have got the hang of the basics.The main weakness in this film is in the script. It's missing a strong narrative to push it forward. The dialogue works but you're not giving the actors much to work with.The next lesson/step in filmmaking you have to learn is "show, don't tell"When you're introducing a character you should show us her main quality in the first scene.If she is brave, let's see her doing something brave, if she is a caring person, let's see her doing something for someone else... etc.These action tell us something about a character and give the actors something to do. Acting is reacting and by not having the characters do anything they don't have anything to react too except the dialogue.Always remember that film takes place in the present. The here and now and that the audience want to see actions not people talking about stuff that's happened or will happen.So in your film, the one girl has a premonition that the other will die.What does she do about it?She makes her get her life in order before she dies. If you had taken out the illness and just had the other one trying to save her from an unknown death while sorting her life out you would have given yourself a lot more room to work.Like what could possibly kill her?Her friend would be afraid when she crosses the road or tried to stop her if she says she wants to go into the water.Play with suspense and mystery.Try out a short film where the audience knows more then the characters Play around and grow and if you fall in love with the work, follow where it takes you.Books that have helped me.1) Directing the Story: Professional Storytelling and Storyboarding Techniques ... By Francis Glebas2) Directing Actors and Directors intuition by Judith Weston3) In the blink of an eye by Walter Murch.Best of luck!
Doubt the movie, Flynn guilty or not. Your opinion?
Even though the storyline is without a doubt ambiguous, I think Father Flynn is guilty. Maybe not for certain charges as it might imply to some people, but here's what I think that backs up Sister Aloysius: The signs of the blowing light bulbs; this happened twice during the movie. These events occured (Sister James and Father Flynn) when the innocence of Father Flynn is being 'claimed' as if justice was being ignored (since the religious setting... you catch my drift?!!). About the altar wine; Father Flynn probably gave Donald the wine just to get him losing up a little, not with the intention to get him intoxicated. More like comforting. NOTE: Father Flynn told Sister Aloysius and Sister James he called Donald (after he was informed by mr. McGuinn) to the rectory because he was caught by mr. McGuinn drinking from the altar wine, but wound up having alcohol in his breath after he returend from the rectory!!! Remember that Donald was not intoxicated. Even though the time span bet
Can PG-13 Movies show girl's nipples?
Yes, they can have "brief nudity". "PG-13 is thus a sterner warning to parents, particularly when deciding which movies are not suitable for younger children. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children. A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year-olds and younger to attend. If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents. PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children and moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can make. Its purpose is to give pre-screened informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make parental decisions easier for films between PG and R." http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp
Which quintessential 80s film should I show my child first?
Depends on how the child is. I’ll say (in no particular order): Batman, Ghostbusters, An American Tail, Secret of NIMH, The Goonies, E.T, Watcher in the Woods or Back to the Future.
Freedom Writers: What is your Opinion on the book/movie?
It's an amazing movie. I couldn't look away. I love those amazing inspirational teacher movies and this was great, plus it's a true story. I recently read the book as well and I really liked it. Random fact: Patrick Dempsey's character in the film is fictional. Erin never married, but they created his character to show the enormous sacrifices that she made. Still, I thought both the book and the film were wonderful.
Your opinion on Harry Potter movies.?
Yes. The movies could be way better. The books are much more interesting and less corny. I think that they cut out pivotal events and characters. For example, Winky the house-elf, Ludo Bagman, and I know that there's more but I can't think of them at the moment. The crying scene in PoA was too much for me, I burst out laughing. The werewolf was fake, and the dog? Why not just use a real trained dog, it can't be that hard? The problem with the movies is that it seems as if they are just doing enough to make lots of money, instead of the love of the books. The casting is horrid. I think Hagrid and McGonagall are great (funnily enough, it was J.K. Rowling who suggested the actors herself), Dumbledore (the first one, of course), and Snape and Filch. The three main characters are ok. but not always convincing, lacking some talent, and Ron looks nothing like I ever imagined. But worse than Ron is Lupin and Sirius, I mean, come on! you can do much better, While I don't think it's from lack of skill, I just think they don't match up. Most of the casting isn't a magical moment where the character is just how you pictured them or better. Take for example the Lord of the Rings. Which was genuinely trying to bring out Tolken's work. the casting was flawless. No complaints there. They even gave Ian McKellen a prosthetic nose to make it bigger. There are a lot of small things like this that Harry potter movies could do to improve. the changing of the directors and everything makes the series as a whole incongruous. What if George Lucas was suddenly replaced in Star Wars? While they are shifting the main audience to teens rather than children, you cannot change the fact that it seems that they are doing all they can to keep the movies in the spirit of the book series. While, not completely horrible, and will obviously make tons of money, will not be winning any oscars in the near future.
What's your opinion on working at a movie theatre?
This summer I am seriously considering getting a job at the movie theatre (Regal) over in St. Augustine (where my relatives are), then transferring over to the one in my hometown (also Regal-oriented). I am 16, if that's a problem. If any of you have ever worked at a theatre and want to share the pros and cons, that'd be great! Also, if any of you know the age requirements for Regal, that'd be nice, too! I've tried calling the thetre, but no one could help me, then I was hung up on after being put on hold for 20 minutes...-_- So yeah, if any of y'all would share your experiences, that'd be wonderful! Thank you!
Is it really necessary that film director should always act and show to his actors?
I can only provide you with myself as an example, but as a director it is an absolute No-Go to jump on stage / the set and perform in front of the actors in order to show them how you like it. It is the one deadly sin of directing. But it's also a matter of logic:Acting in a role means merging the personal qualities of an actor with the requirements of a character. Logically, no two actors could play a role the same way.Logically, if I performed in front of the eyes of an actor, he could try as hard as he ever likes to imitate me - he'd never succeed. Logically, he could never satisfy me.If I wanted me in a role, I'd cast myself.But: while a director does really not have to be good at acting himself, he has to be perfectly good in getting the actor to deliver to his artistic vision / the momentarily intended dramatic purpose / the chemistry of the ensemble. To pull his strings.To push the right buttons.In order to get there, it does certainly not hurt for a director to know what acting is about and how it works. Expertise in social psychology and circus management are helpful as well. And: you better perfectly know what you want - unless you do, you cannot get it. Also, actors genuinely despise directors that do not know what they want, and you do not want an actor around that despises you … you don't! It's contagious.My working style entirely depends on the kind of project I am working on. The only two things that I always do:have a reading and discussion day with the main actors to get to the flesh of the characters. The discussions will deal with the characters' backstories, and it's important to come to a common consent about them in order to orchestrate the ensemble as precisely as possible. Here is where the quality marks are being set - skip this step, and the production is doomed for mediocrity.when we do film (for theatre, it's self-evident), rehearse every scene before shooting it to get to the flesh of the scene.If time and budgets allow, in between these two I will have as many days as possible for an additional full rehearsal of the complete script on an empty stage with all main actors, to get to the flesh of the actors. But that's a rare luxury.