Share your ideas, work, problems, and criticisms. >Esse

Would it be shilling if I posted a screenplay I've been working here for feedback?

>>86944122
no retard that's what these threads are for
I'd let this one die though
I fucked up with the subject field

I have a pretty incredible idea about an invisible vampire who can drain targets from two miles away and is also handsome and stylish and really, really cool but no one notices because he's invisible and always two miles away

>want to make a surreal horror
>no money, time or friends to make props, scout for location etc.
I g-guess I can still draw a st-storyboard ;_;

>>86944122
do it man
>>86944389
I wouldn't say they are for sharing things specifically, I used to make them just to inspire others to keep writing/filming

>>86944719
think outside the box, make your horror an fpp movie, film yourself in customes in creepy static shots, do voice over acting to avoid talking to the camera, there are many ways to do it and you'll enjoy yourself

/swg/ here, /fmg/ are trash men

>>86944907
The numbers to do just it right are numbered though.

>>86945039
it's the same thing you daft fucking cunt

>>86944719
I want to do surrealist horror today but I don't think I understand surrealism.

>>86945522
I INVENTED /swg/ AND IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE DISCUSSION ABOUT FUCKING CAMERAS AND LIGHTS

>>86946208
screenwriting is a part of filmmaking don't be such a faggot

>>86944122
post it faggot

Fuck off,/tv/ is for GOT only.

>>86946591
Yeah sure, whatever, these combined threads have a completely different tone and tripfags are shitting all over them and nothing good ever gets discussed and no screenwriting help is offered, trust me I've observed since the merger happened and I'm completely dissatisfied, I'll comma splice all I like, not that it matters to a camera hustler, but yeah, this combination shit isn't working but some lone combo-obsessed autist is intent on making this a thing and has convinced my /swg/ crew that it should be subsumed into this stupid, ineffectual, retarded, non-working thing so I guess that's that and screenwriters on /tv/ no longer have a safe space to gather in

>>86948922
>so I guess that's that and screenwriters on /tv/ no longer have a safe space to gather in
I suspect most people who posted in our regular /swg/ threads a year ago aren't here anymore, or they have given up
Speaking of giving up, I don't understand this meme 'you'll never gonna make it in the industry might as well give up' argument. If you do enjoy filming and writing, 'making it big' shouldn't be your primary concern anyway. You will enjoy writing your feature and you will enjoy making that short if you really like making film.
That argument is like telling a musician to give up because they'll never make it to the big international festivals.

>>86949504
I don't like you or your posts. If you can identify me by my posting style, please do me the favor of never responding to me again. Thanks

>>86949641
no, you do me a favor and filter me if you don't like it, that's exactly why I use a trip, it saves us both the trouble of replying

>>86948922
lol
There just are fewer people here who do the whole screenwriting thing. It was at its peak late 2014 or so. Turning it into a general filmmaking thread has attracted people if anything. Are you just upset that it's not YOUR precious general anymore?

Another sketch that I wrote yesterday.
I'll come back to it for a second draft after I let it sit for a week or two.
http://docdro.id/vPQ2Zsl

I'm going to start work on writing a short film today that has an actual character arc rather than just a throw-away sketch. I've done all the preliminary drafts/outlines, now it's just a matter actually typing up the damn thing.

>>86949853
Fuck you, tripfag. Exercise some self-control and restraint for once in your pathetic life. My name is Brad. Remember it, and remember my posting style. Then use those memories to stop responding to me. I'm never filtering you. In fact, I'm going to highlight your posts from now on. Don't respond to any responses I make to them.

>>86950337
you're a very good writer, this is very good, I have no suggestions for you to change anything
the way you overly use exposition works especially well in this kind of comedy. Do you know of that 'they're made out of meat' skit? it reminded me of it

>>86950375
alright Brad, please do warn me next time I reply to you, that'll test my senses

>>86943170
>tfw one-man-band
>tfw messed up audio for half a shoot so have to edit around that
>tfw it could've been such a straightforward edit, and in turn I could've focused more on making the actual film good
At least it will look good I guess

>>86949504
This is a good post
>>86948922
/swg/ was just dicks from the irc all circle jerking over nothing, reposting Jon Tron (or whatever it was called) and complaining about how hard life was
Also, if you miss it so much, bring it back and stop complaining you cunt

>>86951265
now you know to check audio after every take
sound is the most important aspect
source: sound recordist and onemanband

>>86951396
I was being an idiot, it was a mistake I've made before but luckily both times I noticed before I finished allowing me to do reshoots that same day which is the only reason why this film isn't dead in the water
But because of this, I think I'm done doing it all myself. I'm gonna get an actual sound guy next time. Less pressure/stress and better quality anyway

how do I achieve that early 2000's digital look

>>86951157
Thanks. I like writing short sketches because it challenges me to convey all the necessary information about the characters and situation in a handful of lines due to the time limitations. It forces me to be more concise with my exposition.
And I've never heard of They're Made of Meat before so I just gave it a watch. I can see what you mean by that.
I'm nowhere near that level of quality yet though. I've still got quite a few years ahead of me before I can make it to that level.

>>86951554
shoot on a really closed aperture (like f/8) for the entire thing
don't apply any contrast in post
overexpose everything slightly
don't use any hard lights, keep all your shadows soft

Actually never mind, I'm thinking of that digital tv look from sitcoms and soap operas
Give an example pls?

I wish I saw more threads like this on /tv/
I'd love to get out and film all the stupid shit I think of. It's good to see anons actually being creative and open.

>>86951554
shoot on an early 00's digital camera?

>>86952012
Just join the A/V club you stupid kid moron.

>>86952012
Use your phone, not even joking

>>86952017
don't have one.

>>86951643
early 2000s was the wrong way describe it
I mean this look

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxP_8Z4EIxw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx2MeCjfP44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xc1l-nPMfM

>>86953381
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx2MeCjfP44
Okay, I get you
>three-point lighting in every shot (no low-key), only use soft lights
>up the contrast
>heavily desaturate
>blow your whites out
>don't apply any sharpening
>slightly overexpose in camera and then lower the gain in post (but not as much as you over exposed by)
>avoid bold and vibrant colours

>>86953928
you're quite knowledgeable about technical stuff, are you a professional?
also any books you'd like to recommend? I'm trying to film something soon but it'd be nice to know something before hand before wasting time

>>86953928
Man I wish I knew what any of this stuff meant

>Consider going to film school.
>Look at costs.
>No longer want to go to film school.
As the great Quentin Tarantino said, "I didn't go to film school, I spent that 40,000 on buy my friends used shoes."

>>86944122
Shut the fuck up Ville

>>86953066
buy one?

File: Untitled.jpg (68KB, 574x864px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 574x864px

>>86953066
early 00's digital cameras are pretty chea >>86953381

Oh that's not digital at all. This 90s movie was shot in film, regardless you don't need a film camera or what have you. What you need to learn to achieve this look is lighting.

Many scenes in Raising Cain are shot in film noir style. video to show you how to do the bottom shot with the girl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-vZycP3dMI

>>86954434
Define 'professional'
Technically yes I suppose. But I mostly just make amateur shorts, trying to break into the industry at a worthwhile level.
Most people don't bother to learn how to properly control their image. Between the split with cinematographers and editors, it doesn't help. Because I do both myself, I learn both.
I like to think I can replicate pretty much any look I want without a budget.
/blogpost

I started with a book called "The Digital Filmmaker's Handbook". (There are lots of different books with the same name. Considering I bought it thinking I was getting a different book, you should be fine no matter. It cost me like £6 on amazon I think)
On top of that, I downloaded Lightworks and played with that. Although DaVinci Resolve would be a better bet today (both are free video editors, both are very powerful, DaVinci is also the most powerful color-grading tool available full stop)

Then I started reading a website called Redsharknews.com
There are other similar sites that are easy to find. But the best way to learn this stuff is with practice

>>86954610
3 point lighting is a standard lighting method using 3 lights (surprise). It's really simple and pretty much every studio photographer uses it. Hollywood uses it less and less because it's not very realistic
Contrast, desaturate, and blowing out your whites are color grading terms. Blowing out your whites refers to upping the exposure for the parts of the image that are most exposed, such that details there are lost
It's the opposite of crushing your blacks (though you can do both without them working against each other)
Sharpening is how hard/blurry the image is
Gain is essentially just exposure.

Hope that helps

>>86954610
Everything film school teaches you, you can learn online for free. It's only worth it for the contacts

>>86955197
what about the fuzzy VHS feel?

>>86955243
thank you so much. I'm gonna try to work this out.

bump I guess

>>86952544
I do that already. Just stupid shit I show my friends on IG. I'm hoping, next year, everything goes right and I get to shoot something bigger with a real camera.

I'm writing a graphic novel and hoping I can get some help here since we don't have threads like this on /co/

How do I give more oomph to dialogue without making it sound overdone or cheap?

>>86961712
>since we don't have threads like this on /co/
Just make one there.

>>86956567
Get a DV camcorder and cables to hook it up to your computer.

>>86962276
They're weird

>>86961712
>we don't have threads like this on /co/
Webcomic general used to be the offical writing thread, but I don't know if that's still around.

>>86961712
There are writing threads on /co/. If you don't see one then make one yourself.

>>86961712
>How do I give more oomph to dialogue without making it sound overdone or cheap?
It's a comic so you should get "oomph" through the illustrations.
I usually do writing criticism on /lit/ but feel free to show me examples of your dialogue.

>>86961712
There's literally a /hyw/ thread on /co/ right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZaUTm33TpU

>>86962340
Sadly, they have better discussion than /tv/ and actually generate original content.

>>86963052
/tv/ is one of the worst boards but I can't ever leave

>>86950337
nice

Bump. Don't be shy, anons, you could be the next Quentin Tarantino or Pat Benetar.

>>86963143
Don't forget, you're here forever.

File: 3e822d28007c2e64c3bc27197c238ed3.jpg (29KB, 640x345px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x345px

bump

How do you understand surrealism?

>>86971816
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp83h_uUkOM