Commented 9 years ago2015-01-11 01:44:02 UTC
in journal: #8494Comment #66210
have you been born yet and are you alive? hey buddy if you ever blue just tell us
i was fucked up and dying in a room with a window in the corner i barely moved and was falling apart. my knees kracked! then i went to a metal show and was dragged and torn apart, i can barely move now but my disintegrating soul was stuck together for some time once again
I've allways wondered what Those particles are. Does they only appear in "-dev" mode? I allways run the game in "-dev" mode when I compile my maps, so I never check them in normal mode. Also, does they only appear when the map is compiled, i.e is it safe to teleport a "monster/npc" into a brush using a "scripted_sequence" or similiar at runtime?
Commented 9 years ago2015-01-09 09:13:37 UTC
in vault item: Nightly AssaultComment #20805
Yeah, I've allready read a lot of them. I don't Think I used any information from them in this map tough. Also, I Went the opposite direction when it comes to the mapping cycle. I first started mapping for the latest source Engine (Portal 2) then continously worked my way down (Engine version seen) to Half-Life. I've also decided to try and upload my entrys to all the other competitions, even tough I know they are all over since long.
Commented 9 years ago2015-01-07 23:36:08 UTC
in journal: #8490Comment #46056
Absolutely right DiscoStu. The problem is, a lot of people entering the industry at the moment aren't digging enough into Spielberg and the like to see the influences. They're not learning about the art of filmmaking; they're learning about the process of filmmaking.
Commented 9 years ago2015-01-07 21:41:10 UTC
in journal: #8490Comment #46070
Well said, Ant. I disagree on one thing, though: We may look up to Spielberg, and Spielberg looked up to different things. But we too can go further back and look at the things Spielberg looked at, and learn from both.
Commented 9 years ago2015-01-07 13:26:17 UTC
in journal: #8490Comment #46055
I get really heavily into a director's mindset, particularly when I watch student films, and find all these things that I would've done completely differently had it been my film. The constant trap that I see student films get into is trying to be overly ambitious, which always results in efforts that are stretched far too thin across multiple aspects of the production.
My half-assed theory behind this is that the tools and equipment needed to create something vast in scale have become incredibly accessible to a wider audience. It becomes less about cutting and altering a script or shot to suit the resources that are on hand and more about just cramming everything in because the tools are on hand. The Spielbergs and Abrams of the day had nothing but constraints to work against, which necessitated an alteration in scope. Most of the time, these constraints actually worked to their benefit as they could focus more of their effort on other aspects of a now smaller production (this also supports my theory that giving a director unlimited and unfettered scope results in a much weaker result - Avatar, the Hobbit trilogy, the Star Wars prequels).
Furthermore, their diet of films was completely different to ours. They were raised on films that valued the subtle: character interactions and minimalistic filmmaking were key. They learnt about pacing, tension, visual comedy, framing, staging because that's all those films had. We were raised on, well, Spielberg, where visual spectacle takes over and a lot of students tend to gloss over the intricacies of what's happening in his films outside those big effects (and there is a lot).
Commented 9 years ago2015-01-07 12:21:42 UTC
in vault item: Nightly AssaultComment #20802
Honestly,when that competition took place, I didn't even know what Half-Life was. I will try and make maps for everyone of these competitions. I know they can't be judged, but it will still give me some great mapping experience.
Commented 9 years ago2015-01-07 09:52:18 UTC
in journal: #8490Comment #46058
I totally agree with all the criticism, in particular Ant's. This was my flatmate's final uni project and as such a lot of the crew (in particular the Director of Photography, Sound Recordist, B cam op and Assembly Editor) had zero previous experience of making this kind of programme. It's really disappointing because I think the script is actually great - it's just a lot of the jokes fall flat due to poor technique. I was given zero creative control over my camera by the DoP who had a rigid storyboard, and as you guessed it was line per line rather than scene run-throughs.
I'm fairly pleased with the VFX side of things, though the B-cam the uni provided (was originally the A-cam until I showed the DoP my camera's footage side by side with theirs) was so noisy and compressed it made even basic rotoscoping a fucking nightmare.
As for the acting, the dad in particular does indeed come from a stage background and it definitely shows. I think Rebecca who plays Lucy is great, as is Dave who plays Archeus. They both took their characters to just the right level of over-the-top, and while Phil (Mike) has moments of greatness, he also falls flat a few times ("Awww, damnit!")
From the perspective of it being a student film, I think it's actually pretty high quality, but I'm definitely gutted it's not as good as it could have been.
Commented 9 years ago2015-01-07 05:18:11 UTC
in journal: #8490Comment #46068
I suppose that in itself is a fair point. Though the exaggeration of life that happens on stage generally tends to make the acting anything but stiff and wooden.
Commented 9 years ago2015-01-07 03:33:11 UTC
in journal: #8490Comment #46059
Totally disagree, Jeffmod. Stage acting is quite aware of the audience and the actors are speaking quite loudly so their voice is clearly heard in the theater, it has a huge impact on the feel and the sound of the acting. Movements and emotions are highly exaggerated so that even people in the back of the room can know what's going on. Film acting, on the other hand, is generally supposed to feel like the audience doesn't exist, and since it's projected on the large screen with (hopefully) uniform sound around the entire theater, there's no need to cater for the size or shape of the audience.
Of course this is just my off-hand rambling, I have almost no knowledge of this stuff. AJ or Archie could explain further, I'm sure.
Inside: OMG, squee!
i was fucked up and dying in a room with a window in the corner
i barely moved and was falling apart. my knees kracked! then i went to a metal show and was dragged and torn apart, i can barely move now but my disintegrating soul was stuck together for some time once again
KING OF HOUSEHOLD
More pics for more d'aws, peez! Is she a pug TJB?
J/k. Congratulations, you have a new best friend for the next 15 years. It's a beautiful experience.
I joined a bit more than 7 years ago. Which begs the question: how the heck does time pass so fast?
Happy birthday!
Happy Birthday!
Go though the tutorials too if you haven't already. Some are pretty dated, but there is a lot of good stuff in there
(Archie, none of this is related to you!)
My half-assed theory behind this is that the tools and equipment needed to create something vast in scale have become incredibly accessible to a wider audience. It becomes less about cutting and altering a script or shot to suit the resources that are on hand and more about just cramming everything in because the tools are on hand. The Spielbergs and Abrams of the day had nothing but constraints to work against, which necessitated an alteration in scope. Most of the time, these constraints actually worked to their benefit as they could focus more of their effort on other aspects of a now smaller production (this also supports my theory that giving a director unlimited and unfettered scope results in a much weaker result - Avatar, the Hobbit trilogy, the Star Wars prequels).
Furthermore, their diet of films was completely different to ours. They were raised on films that valued the subtle: character interactions and minimalistic filmmaking were key. They learnt about pacing, tension, visual comedy, framing, staging because that's all those films had. We were raised on, well, Spielberg, where visual spectacle takes over and a lot of students tend to gloss over the intricacies of what's happening in his films outside those big effects (and there is a lot).
Goddamnit, I really want to make some shit.
This was my flatmate's final uni project and as such a lot of the crew (in particular the Director of Photography, Sound Recordist, B cam op and Assembly Editor) had zero previous experience of making this kind of programme. It's really disappointing because I think the script is actually great - it's just a lot of the jokes fall flat due to poor technique. I was given zero creative control over my camera by the DoP who had a rigid storyboard, and as you guessed it was line per line rather than scene run-throughs.
I'm fairly pleased with the VFX side of things, though the B-cam the uni provided (was originally the A-cam until I showed the DoP my camera's footage side by side with theirs) was so noisy and compressed it made even basic rotoscoping a fucking nightmare.
As for the acting, the dad in particular does indeed come from a stage background and it definitely shows. I think Rebecca who plays Lucy is great, as is Dave who plays Archeus. They both took their characters to just the right level of over-the-top, and while Phil (Mike) has moments of greatness, he also falls flat a few times ("Awww, damnit!")
From the perspective of it being a student film, I think it's actually pretty high quality, but I'm definitely gutted it's not as good as it could have been.
Though the exaggeration of life that happens on stage generally tends to make the acting anything but stiff and wooden.
Film acting, on the other hand, is generally supposed to feel like the audience doesn't exist, and since it's projected on the large screen with (hopefully) uniform sound around the entire theater, there's no need to cater for the size or shape of the audience.
Of course this is just my off-hand rambling, I have almost no knowledge of this stuff. AJ or Archie could explain further, I'm sure.