Make-up FX Maestro Todd A. Britt brings another ghostly creation to life during the wee hours of the night.
Last night, Mutantville Productions wrapped principle photography on G.H.O.S.T. after a long fifteen hour shoot. Kathy Sandvoss earned her final Scream Queen stripes and Super Diva status by battling her way through another challenging shoot. Thanks to our good friend, couture designer, Luis Machicao for lending his tremendous talents in supervising the filming of his costume designs for the finale of the movie. Lead actor Scott Thomas persevered another bloody and bruising shoot to bring our central ghost to life. Clint Jones showed his horror heart by enduring several make-up sessions. Dave Tunik gave his all in taking another bloody bite out of his role and a gelatin prop. Jason Wheely gave a heartwrenching performance as a haunted young TV producer. Jack Stecher pulled out all the stops to give a bravura performance as the crazy caretaker of the opera house.
Special thanks goes out to MVP’S own maestro of make-up FX – Todd A. Britt for bringing all of his Sith talents to bear in creating several macabre make-ups over the course of the fifteen hour marathon. Additional thanks goes to Sylvia and Sierra for lending their talents to the make-up department by resurrecting our supernatural visitors once more. Thanks again to Allan Whitley for toughing out another long night to lend a strong hand and keep our boomstick steady for another night. Special thanks goes out MVP’S own Costume Diva, seamstress and assistant to Mr. Machicao, Angela Pritchett who although unable to attend our final shoot due to schedule conflicts, put in many a long night on the set of G.H.O.S.T., lending her considerable costuming talents to help bring the production to life. Thanks to John R. Sexton for putting on a layered performance as Grandfather last month. Thank you to Kayli Tolleson and her mom Janna for lending their talent, energy and support to G.H.O.S.T. over the course of the shoot. And last but not least a very special thanks goes to my mom, Momma Streebo, for being a beacon of strength and inspiration to me over the years and for dusting off her sewing machine to create Johnny Reb’s jacket in whole – mere days before the first shoot. And to anyone that helped that I may have overlooked here, thank you for your help, we could not have done it without you all. Thank you.
This project has been an amazing journey and I thank you all for sharing it with me. Production may be complete – but post-production begins immediately as we will continue with editing, sound design and shooting final make-up FX shots of the movie. Be sure to keep tuning in to Mutantville.com and Mutant TV for your up to the minute news on G.H.O.S.T., C for Chaos, and MVP.
Mutantville Productions is proud to announce that today is one year and a day since we began planning what became G.H.O.S.T.. Tonight marks the final shoot of principle photography. We are very excited about how great the performances, FX and footage has looked so far. We couldn’t be happier. Better still is the fact that next week we all get to celebrate by being lazy and enjoying Thanksgiving with our families. See you all soon. Remember it wouldn’t be possible without you.
~~Streebo
Posted 2 years, 2 months ago at 12:04 pm. Comments
Last night heralded yet another amazing day of filmmaking on the set of G.H.O.S.T.. We had an absolute blast shooting all of the elements that make horror fun – chases, ghosties, and other supernatural occurrences. Kathy Sandvoss put on a bravura performance as our gutsy heroine enduring take after take and bump after bump like a seasoned pro. Jack Stecher brought all of his years of experience to bear to imbue our creepy caretaker with a life of his own. Clint Jones continued to put on a solid showing as the beleaguered Seth. Dave Tunik and Jason Wheeley were able to survive a grueling make-up session to bring an amazing sequence of supernatural terror to vivid bloody life. Scott Thomas had his moment to take the center stage and bring the spirit of our ghost into four colored action! Thank you to Sylvia and Sierra for coming out and lending their talents as make up assistants again. Props to our ever reliable boom stick operator Allan Whitley for his sure hand and attentive ear throughout the shoot. Thanks to Jeremy for lending a hand shooting the behind the scenes segments. Everyone would like to extend a hearty handshake to Anne Reid for lending her talents as a massage therapist to keep everyone relaxed and loosened up for the duration of the shoot. Thanks to everyone for staying late and toughing it out. We are on the home stretch now – with the end in sight. Next Saturday will mark our final major shoot on the production of G.H.O.S.T. and we couldn’t be more pleased with the results. This will be an amazing project and you will all be very proud of the final film. Thank you all – because without you – our movie wouldn’t be possible.
From ASAP TRIP: The Film Sensei’s Six Quick Tips to Keep Your Indie Film From Sucking!
And here, my loyal students, are those tips to help you avoid some of the pitfalls I encountered as a beginning low budget filmmaker.
1. Lay Off the Zoom!
Yes, I know that George Lucas did it in the new Star Wars films and, yes, I know it was popular in the new Battlestar Galactica show, but all playing around with the zoom on your camera will do is make your footage look like a tourist shooting vacation movies out on the Florida Keys. A really good cameraman can make a zoom look ok (or semi-acceptable)…a really really good cameraman, that is. For the most part, though, a zoom will look shoddy and amateurish. Your best bet is to break your zoom controller or, at the very least, the finger closest to it. A dolly, stedicam or even hand-held track in will all look 1000% better than a crappy zoom.
2. Vary Your Angles
One of the most common mistakes of most new directors and a whole heck of a lot of indie and guerrilla filmmakers is shots all looking alike. Most low budget films are shot very tight and never really open up for a long view – they’re full of close-ups, two shots and cramped quarters. They also tend to be diagram shots framed at eye level. If you want to make your film more excited, or more interesting, pull back for longer shots, tilt your camera, shoot from a bird’s eye or worm’s eye angle – use your camera angles to help set your mood and control your audience’s level of tension/suspense/drama. A good guide is to pull back further than you think you should (or push in further). Make sure to change things up a bit or your footage and your film will become stagnant and boring.
3. Use Proper Lighting
One of the hardest things for most indie, low budget and guerrilla filmmakers to learn is how to properly light for the DV or HD cameras they’re filming on. With a much lower contrast range and higher need for light than the human eye (and film), lighting for DV/HD cameras can often be a bit counter intuitive. In other words, what looks good to your naked eye often won’t work for your finished film. If you’re not careful you’ll wind up with footage too dark to use. If you’ve worked with, or lit for, film cameras then it may take a little while to get used to the change in methodology. I’ve shot with a number of really good DPs recently who made the mistake of lighting for their eyes and not for the camera we were shooting with. Shoot some lighting tests before you begin principal photography so you can get used to your camera’s dynamic range.
4. Write for What You Have
Since most low budget, indie and guerrilla filmmakers also happen to write their own material, the number one thing you should keep in mind when putting your new screenplay together is: write for what you have! The best way to give your film a higher production value is to make use of anything and everything you’ve already got access to. It’s tough to go out and find a cemetary or a muscle car or an airplane, but if you’ve got friends/family with unique locations, props or wardrobe then you can make your little $5000 movie look like you spent tens or hundreds of thousands on it. It worked for Robert Rodriguez and it will work for you.
5. Get a Good Tripod
Hand holding is great on a date with your girlfriend (or boyfriend, we’re not sexist here at the Film Sensei’s DOJO), but it should be used sparingly on a film set. Get a good fluid head tripod and make use of it as much as possible to give yourself a solid base to work from. Remember, hand held footage is great as long as it is used for a purpose and for an effect. If you’re just doing it because you’re too cheap to spring for a good set of sticks then your film will suffer for it.
6. Get a Good Mic
I feel like I’m starting to sound like a broken record after yesterday’s post about essential audio equipment for indie and guerrilla filmmakers. However, it’s a point well worth repeating over and over. While your audience may forgive a little wonky storytelling, dark images or even bad acting, the one thing no one will forgive is bad sound. There is almost nothing you can do that is worse than poor sound quality, and nothing that will make you look more like an amateur – well, short of accidentally filming all day with your lens cap on. Decent mics are available even for those of us on a more modest budget and there is absolutely no excuse to be shooting with your camera’s onboard mic – EVER!
There you have it: the extent of my wisdom. Yes, I know there are a lot more things to keep in mind and that will help (like making sure to get a good AD to help run your set properly or not hiring actresses you want to sleep with), but if you follow these six tips you’ll have a good head-start on keeping your first low budget film from sucking worse than a two-dollar whore.
That’s it from the depths of the DOJO for tonight. Until next time, Keep Shooting!
We had a rather productive day of filming this past Saturday – productive that is – until we were set to roll the cameras on our finale scenes when we lost all power to the opera house. We hoped it was nothing more than a tripped breaker or perhaps a blown fuse – but after three hours in the dark – we were worried that it was something a bit more serious. We sent the cast and crew home only to discover to our pleasant surprise – that the problem was indeed a blown fuse which was easily fixed. Before losing our power – we were able to shoot two scenes earlier in the day as well as an extended photo shoot featuring our full cast.
With help from assistants Sylvia and Sierra, our make-up FX expert Todd A. Britt was on hand to provide some amazing ghostly make-ups. Their make-up efforts were not lost as we were able to catch the supernatural victims in an exhaustive series of photos and promo shots. Expect to see those pop up as promotional posters somewhere down the line.
The producers of Mutantville Productions would like to extend a hearty thank you to our cast and crew. You all dealt with the delay like real professionals and we were able to make the best out of what was potentially a disastrous situation. Due to the set-back – we have extended the shooting schedule of G.H.O.S.T. to include November 14th and 21st – giving us just enough time to wrap before Turkey Day! Thank you all for everything you do. I look forward to seeing you back on the set for our finale this Saturday!
~~Streebo
Posted 2 years, 3 months ago at 11:06 am. Comments
The final two weeks of production on G.H.O.S.T. are upon us. We are more than pleased with our progress so far. Everything has been outstanding. All of the cast and crew have risen to the occasion time and again and we can never thank you enough. When we developed the idea of what became G.H.O.S.T. way back in January over a basket of nachos and salsa – we never expected it would become as good as it has. With the rise of interest in the paranormal sub-genre with the blockbuster success of independent films such as Paranormal Activity – this can only augur great things for the future of G.H.O.S.T.. Thank you all for your hard work. We have some tough shoots ahead of us – but we know that we have the right cast, crew and courage to see it through. See you on the set, MVP.
From Mike Jones Digital Basin: Allow me to be deliberately provocative…
How a Movie looks is a very important thing. The visual aesthetics of a movie profoundly shape the experience of watching it. Few would argue with this position.
Aesthetics, by definition, is the study of ways of seeing and of perceiving. When we consider the aesthetics of cinema we are considering how a movie looks and is perceived. To the filmmaker – concerned with making, building, constructing a film rather than just experiencing it – aesthetics are tangibly the techniques they employ to depict the world of their cinematic creation.
So far, this is all pretty obvious and straight forward. But something we must consider is this idea of ‘Technique’ and the choices at the filmmaker’s disposal – What are they? How are they used? What do they mean?
Any visual technique used by a filmmaker is simply a tool leveraged for an aesthetic story-telling purpose. Quick-cutting or long-takes, close-ups or wide shots, colour or black and white, dollys or pans, so on and so on… The effectiveness, impact and worth of any given technique a filmmaker employs is derived from its suitability to the context of the film. In simple terms, does the technique match the story?
Filmmaking is above all else a process of problem solving and the techniques employed are simply the solution to those problems – be they narrative, emotive, technical or creative. For example;
PROBLEM – The audience need to feel a part of the action, that they share the danger the characters face.
SOLUTION – Shoot hand-held and shaky, ducking and weaving the camera with the action
All this seems well and good and leaves open infinite possibilities for creative aesthetic solutions. Great films are made when directors find innovative, fresh and exciting aesthetics to solve creative problems.
But if we except this premise then we must face up to a distinct problem. If a single aesthetic choice becomes so dominant and common and ubiquitous across all genre’s of filmmaking, regardless of the creative problems posed by individual films, then it ceases to be grounded technique – it becomes stale, meaningless, banal, a default position rather than a creative choice.
In the 21st century I would attest that Shallow Focus and Rack Focus aesthetics have lost all meaning as useful creative problem solving techniques and instead have become banal, unimaginative staples of cinema. And it prompts us to ask loudly…. “What the hell happened to Deep Focus?”
Let me step back a bit from this verbose statement and provide some clarity on the trajectory that leads me to this point. In the early days of cinema film stocks were slow and so apertures had to be wide open in the hope of obtaining decent exposure. With wide open apertures you get very shallow depth of field – a short stretch of space where the subject is in focus that renders anything in the fore or back ground blurred.
In the 40’s companies such as Kodak and Agfa developed better chemical processes and faster film stocks. With faster film stocks apertures dont need to open so wide for exposure and thus depth of field can be extended. Deep-Focus cinema was born; an image aesthetic where subjects at varying focal-lengths from the camera can be equally sharp; both foreground and background in focus. Cinema changed dramatically as a new set of problem solving aesthetic techniques were opened up for filmmakers; new opportunities and possibilities for how a film could look. Shallow Focus and its offspring Rack Focus (where the lens is manipulated in-shot to shift focus from one subject to another) became not the staple of how films looked and worked visually but rather options of choice that a filmmaker may chose to use, or not use, depending on the needs and context of the film.
Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane, and the superb camera work of Gregg Toland, stands as a penultimate example of the power of deep-focus and spawned the host of new thinking about cinema aesthetics that was embodied by the French New Wave and scholarly journals such as Cahiers du Cinema.
But the cinematic party of aesthetic choice, possibility and variety seemed to be cut short as deep-focus became the victim of the Video and Digital Revolutions.
Let me explain…
Video technology – the ability to capture a moving image electronically rather than chemically – came along in the 70’s and 80’s. For the most part such technology was seen as having a great many benefits but one of them was Not visual fidelity. The technology still had many years to go (and an evolution from analogue to digital) before it may be considered visually equal. The simplistic result of this was that Video Cameras at this time were made, in large part, not to directly compete with film cameras for conservatively traditional cinema roles but to serve different purposes. As such they were largely small cameras with small sensors. There is of course a direct mathematical correlation between the size of the sensor (the imaging plane) and the depth of field rendered. Small sensor = deep depth of field. Large sensor = shallow depth of field. Video technology, by nature of both its technological limitations and cultural position within media industry contexts, was innately deep-focus.
What must remembered about cinema aesthetics is that they are deeply connected to cultural responses. Take for example the modern age of mobile phones and mass popular YouTube uploading. We have become so used to seeing nightly TV news filled with amateur footage that is shaky, pixelated and out of focus depicting immediate and current events in a veritae style that there is a prevailing cultural construct that directly associates such Shaky / Out of focus / Pixelated images with ‘Truth’ and ‘Actuality’. It’s for this reason that modern TV news proactively requests amateur footage from its viewers despite it being only a few years ago that airing such footage would have been considered beneath ‘Broadcast Quality Standards’. Similarly TV networks the world over have been known to compress and deliberately degrade images of natural disasters and war zones in order to make it seem more ‘authentic’.
This same cultural construct response was forced upon deep focus by the video revolution of the 70’s and 80’s. What was ingrained into the popular visual language was that ‘deep focus’ equated to video and so, in the minds of viewers, primarily to documentary, news reporting, amateur footage, cheap production and pornography. Conversely that ’shallow focus’ equated to ‘film’ and high budget, narrative cinema, high-art.
This shift in the popular cultural ‘reading’ of moving image aesthetics and the separation of High and Low cinematic art on the basis of Deep or Shallow focus has been a blight and a curse on filmmaking ever since.
In the digital age, amid the famed ‘digital revolution’, we at last moved towards a parity of visual fidelity between celluloid and digital but have been simultaneously afflicted with a prevailing bogus desire to constrict the aesthetics of digital to the legacy hang-ups of film.
Sadly the prime concern of digital indie filmmakers over the past decade has not been the new aesthetic possibilities afforded them by digital technologies but rather an almost singular focus on the cost saving and pragmatic elements of digital. As such, the much lauded desire of digital filmmaking has been to, on one hand, shoot cheap but, on the other, have it look like ‘Film’.
Now, despite the thousands of website articles, posts, forum treatises and essays dedicated to the mission of how to get the ‘Film Look’ it is arguable that a useful definition with any clarity on exactly what constitutes the ‘Film look’ is near impossible to come by. Frame Rate, Progressive scan, Grain, Flicker, Weave, Dynamic Range, Gamma curve – these are all the traits often cited as the ‘film look’ but together they constitute such a broad palette of hazy and in-tangible possibilities that distilling them into a particular set of aesthetic traits is a highly ephemeral process.
May I suggest this…. The ?film look? is bullshit; a product of marketing representation and the digestible distillation of an association with a particular mode of viewing. The ‘film look’ is a cultural rather than aesthetic understanding; one drawn from our legacy of personal cinematic experiences in the movie theatre watching a projected image – Nostalgia not Aesthetics.. Thus, when it comes to making ‘films’ in the digital age for ourselves our base instincts are to want our films to evoke those same nostalgic memory associations we have with celluloid. This we translate as the aesthetic of film, the ‘film look’, but in truth it’s much more about cultural and personal association.
Through all this, the ramifications of this for digital indie filmmakers have been profound. In working with Digital Video but desiring a ‘film look’ – that is near impossible to quantify – their efforts were skewed and corrupted. For so many digital indie filmmakers over the past 15 years their functional definition of the ‘film look’ was primarily whatever aesthetic characteristics were the opposite of what was innate to small-format video. Most specifically Shallow Focus.
Because deep-focus is the default position of many small format digital cameras, owing largely to small sensors as imaging planes, the prevailing aesthetic desire of indie filmmakers was to invest their films with the opposite – to enforce shallow-focus as a way of connecting with a popular culture mindset that connects Shallow Focus with ‘high-budget cinema’ and Deep Focus with ‘low-budget’ video.
As a result we have a whole generation of filmmakers who measure their aesthetic mark by how shallow their focus can be and how often they can Rack-Focus their shots. They are a generation who have been obsessed with rack-focusing rather than staging to move the viewer around the cinematic space; using the camera lens to depict space in flat 2D planes rather than a 3-diemnsion staging of space itself.
We’ve spent so much of the digital revolution fussing over how to make digital look like film that we’ve neglected the subtle art of arranging space itself, forgotten how to focus the eye Spatially rather than the far more clumsy and overt mechanics of doing it Optically. Most importantly we’ve forgotten that the viewer is a sentient and intelligent being, more than capable of deciphering, analyzing, speculating on and articulating the visual information they take in.
Let me offer a verbose rebuke of Shallow Focus and Rack-Focus by way of being provocative.
Shallow focus and Rack-Focus is lazy. A ham-fisted and overtly slothful technique with little impetus other than to lead your viewer around by the nose, to force them to look exactly where you want them to look, when you want them to look there. As a tool, like all other cinematic tools at the filmmakers disposal, it can and may be very useful. But as a staple and default way to depict moving images it is as articulate as a house brick.
Shallow focus and Rack Focus is the cinema equivalent of spoon-feeding the audience one small digestible and banal visual morsel at a time. Handing to them a deliberately unsophisticated and unchallenging image platter. It is the camera equivalent of writing only in capital letters and short sentences for fear your reader/viewer may not understand precisely and exactly what you want them to understand. “Look here”, “see this”, “turn now” – no distractions, no surprises, no accidentals, no confusion, no uncertainty, just the domineering dictation of a moving-image experience on pre-determined flat 2-dimensional planes. This is the essential internal logic of Shallow-Focus/Rack-Focus cinematography which, by nature of it’s elimination through blur of any distractions outside of a singular focus, is an acutely dictatorial aesthetic. An aesthetic that leaves nothing to the viewers analytical mind and doesn’t engage the viewer in a more complex visual contract. Rack-Focus refuses to allow the viewer to decipher and assemble meanings for themselves and is a condescending and patronizing way present a cinematic image.
That said, the problem is not Shallow and Rack Focus unto themselves as techniques but rather that they are not seen and used as deft Tools and problem solving Options. Rather they act as blithe and banal default methods fueled by a misguided desire for an association with nostalgic ‘high-art’.
Utilizing deeper focus allows for a complex play of light, space, distance, obstacles and subjects. The arrangement of the framed contents becomes paramount, the subjects proportions and relationships to each other the prime creative device. The construction of a cinematic space that is detailed and nuanced becomes the main canvas of the filmmaker. Shallow focus eliminates and takes these options away, it dissolves a great deal of the problem-solving and decision making process that is the art of the Director. In shallow focus the Director is not demanded to solve problems of space, is not compelled to ask questions of arrangement and position, is relieved of the requirement to convey proximity and relationships.
A post such as this may be very confronting for some indie filmmakers who have dedicated so much of their time to extolling the virtues of shallow depth-of-field and to toiling in their colour-grading system to mimic film-stock emulsion and gamma curves. But for those more enlightened readers who feel compelled to think outside of banal convention and consider how else things might be done, I encourage you to read David Bordwells superb book ‘Figures Traced Light’ which explores in exquisite detail the lost art of Cinematic Staging and Deep-Focus.
Likewise the two links below present some interesting reading in regard to the contentious history of deep-focus and its connection to movements such as the New Wave and the idea of ‘reality’.
By Rodney Robbins from the Charlotte Creative Community Board:
With all those lights and all that great looking talent, you have the perfect chance to shoot stunning, attention grabbing publicity stills. Instead of thinking of these shots as add-ons that slow down your already Super Tight production schedule, I say schedule them in and SAVE time! Do your publicity shots after the last take, before you strike the lights, that way it takes 2 minutes to get a great shot in stead of 20. Here are some shots to consider adding to your Shot List.
Close-up of lead crying or laughing
Two shot of leads arguing or being VERY expressive
Director giving notes to talent on set
Medium shot of actors pointing at lines
Actors playing with (er…um…I mean Rehearsing with) props
DP and producer with camera
Gaffer and DP or director setting lights
Writer and director framing a shot
Talent and director pigging out at craft services
People usually find these “candid,” behind the scenes shots much more interesting than a wide shot of the entire cast and crew. May I also suggest that you go ahead and feature individuals in your shots, make them STARS, but for different media outlets. Let the talent be the stars of main stream newspapers–they love that stuff. PAs can be stars in their college newspaper. Producers can be stars in business journals and newsletters. Directors and photographers can be stars for weekly newspapers and journals. I hope this helps.
Our intrepid heroes, Streebo & Brento, made a special trip across the skies of guerrrilla filmmaking to begin work on the editing of our latest short horror film – G.H.O.S.T.. Going into our first editing session – we had just under three hours of footage from the two weeks of shooting G.H.O.S.T.. We decided it would be a good idea to build the first assembly during production. This way we know if we need any additional shots or pick ups while we still have all of our cast available to us. It took us roughly five hours to pull the footage needed – but we’re all set and ready to go. We’ve already discussed editing possiblities and the angles we want to use. Next week – we’ll start building the first rough cut of the movie. Be sure to keep checking back for more documentary like updates as we continue the movie making process for G.H.O.S.T..
Thanks to everyone for coming out for the auditions today. We were privileged enough to take readings from several talented actors. Thank you all for sharing your passion for filmmaking with us. Special thanks to the Carolina Actors’ Studio Theatre for granting us the use of their facilities.
Keep watching the MVP Blog for more information on pre-production of G.H.O.S.T.
Posted 2 years, 5 months ago at 11:55 pm. Comments
Welcome to Mutantville Productions MVP Blog. Join Streebo, Brento, Geo & the rest of the Mutantville Players as they set sail on the high seas of guerrilla filmmaking in their ongoing quest to bring you the finest in genre entertainment.
Mutantville Productions is proud to announce that today is one year and a day since we began planning what became G.H.O.S.T.. Tonight marks the final shoot of principle photography. We are very excited about how great the performances, FX and footage has looked so far. We couldn’t be happier. Better still is the fact that next week we all get to celebrate by being lazy and enjoying Thanksgiving with our families. See you all soon. Remember it wouldn’t be possible without you.
Last night heralded yet another amazing day of filmmaking on the set of G.H.O.S.T.. We had an absolute blast shooting all of the elements that make horror fun – chases, ghosties, and other supernatural occurrences. Kathy Sandvoss put on a bravura performance as our gutsy heroine enduring take after take and bump after bump like a seasoned pro. Jack Stecher brought all of his years of experience to bear to imbue our creepy caretaker with a life of his own. Clint Jones continued to put on a solid showing as the beleaguered Seth. Dave Tunik and Jason Wheeley were able to survive a grueling make-up session to bring an amazing sequence of supernatural terror to vivid bloody life. Scott Thomas had his moment to take the center stage and bring the spirit of our ghost into four colored action! Thank you to Sylvia and Sierra for coming out and lending their talents as make up assistants again. Props to our ever reliable boom stick operator Allan Whitley for his sure hand and attentive ear throughout the shoot. Thanks to Jeremy for lending a hand shooting the behind the scenes segments. Everyone would like to extend a hearty handshake to Anne Reid for lending her talents as a massage therapist to keep everyone relaxed and loosened up for the duration of the shoot. Thanks to everyone for staying late and toughing it out. We are on the home stretch now – with the end in sight. Next Saturday will mark our final major shoot on the production of G.H.O.S.T. and we couldn’t be more pleased with the results. This will be an amazing project and you will all be very proud of the final film. Thank you all – because without you – our movie wouldn’t be possible.
From ASAP TRIP: The Film Sensei’s Six Quick Tips to Keep Your Indie Film From Sucking!
We had a rather productive day of filming this past Saturday – productive that is – until we were set to roll the cameras on our finale scenes when we lost all power to the opera house. We hoped it was nothing more than a tripped breaker or perhaps a blown fuse – but after three hours in the dark – we were worried that it was something a bit more serious. We sent the cast and crew home only to discover to our pleasant surprise – that the problem was indeed a blown fuse which was easily fixed. Before losing our power – we were able to shoot two scenes earlier in the day as well as an extended photo shoot featuring our full cast.
The final two weeks of production on G.H.O.S.T. are upon us. We are more than pleased with our progress so far. Everything has been outstanding. All of the cast and crew have risen to the occasion time and again and we can never thank you enough. When we developed the idea of what became G.H.O.S.T. way back in January over a basket of nachos and salsa – we never expected it would become as good as it has. With the rise of interest in the paranormal sub-genre with the blockbuster success of independent films such as Paranormal Activity – this can only augur great things for the future of G.H.O.S.T.. Thank you all for your hard work. We have some tough shoots ahead of us – but we know that we have the right cast, crew and courage to see it through. See you on the set, MVP.
By Rodney Robbins from the Charlotte Creative Community Board:
Our intrepid heroes, Streebo & Brento, made a special trip across the skies of guerrrilla filmmaking to begin work on the editing of our latest short horror film – G.H.O.S.T.. Going into our first editing session – we had just under three hours of footage from the two weeks of shooting G.H.O.S.T.. We decided it would be a good idea to build the first assembly during production. This way we know if we need any additional shots or pick ups while we still have all of our cast available to us. It took us roughly five hours to pull the footage needed – but we’re all set and ready to go. We’ve already discussed editing possiblities and the angles we want to use. Next week – we’ll start building the first rough cut of the movie. Be sure to keep checking back for more documentary like updates as we continue the movie making process for G.H.O.S.T..