What a day for a daydream
Zach at Lit Fuse turned me on to this wonderful one shot film by Mystfit last week. I’m a huge fan of the evolving single shot film, this takes it way beyond what I’ve personally attempted so far.
The film is a tremendous demonstration of the Source engine (Half-Life 2 Episode 1) at its best, and also a good opportunity to see how good this new YouTube HD video can look.
43 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
that’s a good one. The amount of work that went into scripting this must have been hair-pulling. Song works so well with this film. BTW, Junior G-Men was a one-shot film as well. I think I’m going to try something like this in HL2 myself. Thanks!
Comment by Ricky Grove — January 14, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Yeah the scripting and map is great, but Motion picture wise it’s poor. Like if you’re gonna do some awesome scripting with excellent planning, at least sort the camera out. I found sometimes the guy was blocking out action because of the camera location, was fine when he was too the side sometimes and the end where the camera turns and he is like half off… but other than the camera, the rest of it was great. I find a GREAT Machinima or FILM needs to have great cinematic camera design in it too, it’s what makes it great and how it sells what you’re creating. This is what this needs.
Comment by Robert — January 14, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Wow - great work! The song fits so well with the unfazed character walking through all that mayhem, and the graphic quality is breathtaking!
Comment by sisch — January 14, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
I’ve played this about 8 times already, it’s great! I like the camera movements, they feel very natural. I hate when things look overly contrived, machinima is about spontaneity, otherwise we would be using Maya. This movie has personality. It’s not too geeky, non machinima people will like it. Really enjoyable.
Comment by Trace — January 14, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
I have to agree with Trace, I think the imperfections contribute to the “live” feel. There are a few things things I’d have framed just a bit differently, maybe made those moments of obscurity feel more deliberate (some feel accidental). And I’d have different approach on the sound mix to provide better balance, but all in all (camera included) I just love how this film turned out.
Comment by Overman — January 15, 2009 @ 12:15 am
Very good movie. Camera is just fine; no need for Steadicam look, not always.
Trace, about your “machinima is about spontaneity, otherwise we would be using Maya” - interesting theme to discuss, many levels of questions lies here and if you ever wrote something more on this subject, please let me now.
Comment by Tom — January 15, 2009 @ 1:37 am
I think I have to agree with Robert re: the camera, it’s the only flaw I noticed the first time I watched it. I agree with Phil to about the audio. . . I found it difficult to make out the lyrics, which I think are very important to a film like this. But wow. Holy shit, this was a cool movie. I loved it how the bridge and skyway both fell the second he walked past them. And the atom bomb look near the end was the perfect ending (that or maybe a headcrab zombie chasing after him :-P)
Comment by kradproductions — January 15, 2009 @ 2:10 am
Fantastic, loved it.
Then I read the comments and thought, whoops, maybe I should have been more critical.
…nah, I just loved it, great entertainment and plenty of “what the heck is going to happen next”
Comment by Russell — January 15, 2009 @ 5:25 am
I’m sorry, but if you think the Camera is fine then obviously you’ve got no clue on Cinematic language… You might wanna sort that out first before showing any Machinima. Because let’s face it. With out cinematic language in cameras… the whole thing fulls apart and ruins the piece.
Comment by Robert — January 15, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
I’ve gotta go with robert here, and it’s not to be harsh on Mysfit, he knows my feelings and understands. The camera is a weakpoint here, framing is very bland, and forced, keeping the camera at an uncomfortable distance throughout the film, the character’s head falls in no-mans land or dead center, it sometimes even ducks below the upper thirds line, leaving WAY too much headroom. the default shot is generally too far zoomed out to appreciate the performance of the main character, and the slight downshot leaves the camerawork feeling a bit too gamey. it’s an incredible bit of choreography and scripting, but more work could have been used on properly composing the single shot that the movie uses.
Comment by Zachariah — January 15, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Okay if you are reducing yourself to cheap insults Robert, I will join in. What cinematic language are you talking about Robert? Big budget Hollywood, film noir, b-movie, Hichcock, films such as Blair Witch, Trainspotting, Hero? You can name the best world class movie directors and all of them will film in a different style. If you are only copying the cinematic style of certain directors I would argue that you are lacking originality and innovation. Machinima is not, nor will it ever be, real film. The only people who really give a stuff about “cinematic language” are film critics and nerds. Everyone else who goes to watch movies just wants entertainment, they want a good story, good art, emotion, that’s it. Where would films such as Blair Witch be in your world of “you must use cinematic language to be worthy” world with some guy jumping up and down demanding it be filmed like “independence day”.
Comment by Trace — January 15, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
And while I remember, I will say that the lack of the average guy in the street liking machinima is partly due to the geekiness of the machinima community, the over emphasis on technical over story.
Comment by Trace — January 15, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Oops, I remembered something else. Not everyone sees machinima as “film” at least half the community see it as “animation” and that comes with a whole different set of visual rules.
Comment by Trace — January 15, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Machinima isn’t film
- it’s a motion picture. And please stop making excuses. “Film will never be film” that makes no sense. Because in reality it sorta is. It’s a MOVING PICTURE. the only difference is you’re not filming it in real life on FILM.
The Cinematic language is the BASIC to create a moving picture. Framing. keeping the guy in shot, showing the action in the frame which means you’re telling the story via the camera… you don’t need fancy cameras… it’s so bloody simple if you understand the cinematic language. I’ve seen such shit camera work on well written pieces and designed sets for Machinima it just ruins it.
“The only people who really give a stuff about “cinematic language” are film critics and nerds” haha.. another awesome shitty excuse :).
Have fun!
Comment by Robert — January 15, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Trace, yes different directors use different styles. That does not mean that those styles are formed without any concious thought. EVERY one of those directors pays heed to what elements they need to balance in the frame and how the camera needs to move/react. True, there is no perfect shot that works for everyone, however there is a very universal set of compositional elements that define a “bad” shot. If the character has too much head room the shot feels unnatural, if the character is in a strange area on the frame the viewer can have a hard time telling where to look. if the shot is unnaturally low angle, with the horizon approaching or rising above the middle of the frame, that can lead to the ground feeling like wasted space. There’s quite a few do’s , and quite a few don’ts that should be considered when making a well framed shot. What robert is saying, and what I am also saying, is that the film above, mysfit’s Daydream is well made in most areas, but the camerawork is disproportionately poor compared to the excellent choreography. Ignoring it is fine, but saying it’s untrue, with your own defense being “PEOPLE WHO EMULATE PROFFESIONAL DIRECTORS ARE UNORIGINAL” is just kind strangely dismissive of the entire concept of mindful filmaking.
also, saying the “the average guy in the street likes machinima because they just want entertainment” has No bearing at all on whether or not directors should strive to improve their own craft and talent.
AND ALSO, I am NOT insulting Mysfit when I say any of this, so there’s no need to defend him here. he knows my thoughts and I understand and accept his reasons for doing things the way he did.
I’m really just baffled at this “anti-craft” attitude that’s been going on around here.
Comment by Zachariah — January 15, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
“I’m really just baffled at this “anti-craft” attitude that’s been going on around here.”
Yep. I’ve seen this so much.
Comment by Robert — January 15, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
“I’m really just baffled at this “anti-craft” attitude that’s been going on around here.”
Robert and Zach - That’s because you’re sell outs
But in all honesty, I really agree with Robert and Zach here - Film, Machinima, and all visual mediums use cinematographic principles such as composition, timing and colour theory as tools to express their intent. Without it, you are not telling a story you are recording a moment in history. There is a huge distinction there.
As a comment on Mysfit’s video, I believe the framing to be a bit off. My reason for feeling this is that it doesn’t follow any framing ‘rules’. That said, of course you don’t need to follow the rules all the time, but the actual act of ignoring the rules is caused by an intent of story telling and emotioneering.
Comment by Jesse — January 15, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
The movie for this song is a really cool idea. The scripting must have taken some time. I too have struggled with extended frontal walking shots.
Rob, I don’t see where you or anyone else has been making “cheap insults.” For heavens sake, you’re a professional camera operator (or retired? LOL). I will always welcome criticism like yours when I put out another movie. And I will put out a movie again! I will! I swear!
Comment by FLeeF — January 15, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
I would like to see some excellent camera work in these Machinimas, its all I’m saying, basic cinematic language, and to do an awesome piece with alot of hard work put into it like this Machinima and others I’ve seen. it seems to me and others a shame! ALWAYS consider the camera work.
Comment by Robert — January 15, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
I am yelling the same thing about anti craft attitude in Machinima world for years. And nobody listen. And I don’t care any more. (For listeners, not for craft) If you want to go in detail, movie in question have several more problems then camera but likely, - did I say that already - I don’t care.
I don’t know was this sentence addressed to me: “…sorry, but if you think the Camera is fine then obviously you’ve got no clue on Cinematic language…”, but if it is - believe me, I do have some clue. When I care.
Comment by Tom — January 15, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
You will have a hard time convincing the Oscars that machinima is film. You will probably have a hard time convincing them it’s animation. It isn’t film and it isn’t animation, it’s something else altogether.
Zach, I have no problem with anything you said in your first 2 posts. It was fair comment and your opinion. As you can read I was addressing Robert and this comment:
“if you think the Camera is fine then obviously you’ve got no clue on Cinematic language… You might wanna sort that out first before showing any Machinima”. On what planet is that not a cheap insult at everyone who disagrees with Rob?
““I’m really just baffled at this “anti-craft” attitude that’s been going on around here.”
Yep. I’ve seen this so much.”"
Where on earth have you ever seen an anti-craft attitude, please show me.
What I am saying is that people look for different things when they watch a movie. You, Robert might put the cinematics at the top of your list, someone else will put the story at the top of their list. Otherwise, everyone will always agree on the same movies being great or terrible, which they never do! We all strive for everything, but unfortunately I have yet to see the machinima movie, cinema movie or animated movie that has it all.
I could look at one of Robert’s movies and pick out the faults in colour, in texture, in sound design (this is an example not what I think) and Robert would say, who gives a fuck about that. And he would be right. Those things are what I look for first in a movie, but they are not important to other people necessarily.
You have your opinion that the camera needs improvement, I have the opinion that the camera is fine. Nobody is correct, we just have our preferences.
Comment by Trace — January 15, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
I’ve heard of two schools of thought regarding cinematography: Learn the rules, so you can break them later if you choose or just don’t learn the rules, that way you won’t be constricted by them. Personally, I believe in learning the rules. Some movies require certain approaches to the camera work. The “Bourne” movies use lots and lots of quick cuts and jump cuts to speed up the action and a lot of the camera work is handheld to give the movie a more visceral feel.
I believe some rules are meant to be broken, but not at the audience’s expense. Every day Joe’s who go to movies ARE looking for entertainment, a good story, good art, emotion, and yeah, that is pretty much it. But cinematography makes all of the difference in the world. You can have a world class script, actors, sets, etc., but it means absolutely nothing if you can’t frame it. The audience sees what the camera shows them. It doesn’t take a film critic or a nerd to understand that. Any average Joe knows if they’re seeing what they’d like to see. You can never underestimate the audience because WE are the audience.
The camera work in this film was an apparent flaw because it was so heavily contrasted against everything else that was so finely tuned.
Comment by kradproductions — January 15, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
Eh, Krad I agree with you. I always pay attention (too much attention) to framing and mood in my movies, and loses story because of it, but cinematics are not the most important thing, movies are complex.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pHBrbumr-Hc
This is a fantastic advert. If it were in the middle of a movie it would be crap. It’s technically brilliant but it has no soul, it’s cold.
If Mysfit’s movie is just seen as a technical exercise then it may benefit from better camera technique. If it’s seen as a movie then the camera fits in fine, it’s the overal experience, it feels warm, it has character, it’s human. It would be cold if it were perfect. We don’t have computers playing Mozart at concerts because they are “too perfect” they don’t have those little deviations that make a piece great. I would argue that machinima should never be perfect, we can strive for perfection but it’s great that we never achieve it. This is the advantage we have over non real time recording, such as Maya.
Comment by Trace — January 15, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Why is it good for a technical exercise to have mindful camerawork but a final production quality release to not? and it’s not “slight imperfections” in camerawork here that’s pulling in the criticism. also “lack of perfection” is not an advantage that I’d count. It’s not that “we use machinima because we don’t have the kind of control that maya does” we use machinima because it’s Faster than normal production pipelines, but speed does not mean that perfection or even mindful work is not important.
arguing that machinima should never strive for perfection or in the broader sense, that machinima should not strive to be judged on the same plane as profesional, developed films runs counter to the attitudes of most of the people reading this blog. You’re definately in the minority on that one, but I’d like to hear your reasoning beyond “it’s not maya so it doesn’t need to be perfect”
and I am not saying that pixel perfect development is a must have, alot of good can come out of short fast projects that are created on pure instinct and passion, but there is no reason to say that striving for perfection is wrong for machinima.
If nobody strived to be better than they currently are, then we’d still be living in caves. or to use a more apt metaphor, we’d still be driving recording demo’s from quake, using the ingame chat for all of our narration.
Comment by Zachariah — January 15, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Eh Zach? We are arguing the same point. I said we can strive for perfection, meaning we do strive for perfection, me as well. But if we ever get perfection will it have any warmth left to it?
Comment by Trace — January 15, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
either we are arguing completely different points, or you are arguing yours very poorly.
Comment by Zachariah — January 15, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
Rob may have been blunt in his criticism, but it was still constructive criticism.
It doesn’t matter if you want to follow the rules or break them. The golden rule to me it seems is that if something (like camera framing or sound mix) sticks out or distracts the viewer from the subject or entertainment, as this movie apparently did for me and others, it should be talked about in a constructive way and not stifled because pointing it out might offend someone.
I liked this movie. This kind of humor is right up my alley, but the imbalanced framing, distance to the subject and random, robotic camera movements distracted me from the humor it provides. I guess if I point that out, I should be prepared for accusations by some of being insulting or a nerd. It’s probably why most people refrain from commenting and certainly why I’ll get back into that silent running mode.
Comment by FLeeF — January 15, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
If you two are arguing the same point it must be one of those points that splits off into two opposing poles. Cinematography IS important to take note of. Just cause it has the word ‘cinema’ in it doesn’t meant we have some kind of obligation to ignore it as Machinima artists.
Comment by Dr. Nemesis — January 15, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
PS enjoyed the piece. What I thought needed more attention than even the camera work though, was the sound mixing.
Comment by Dr. Nemesis — January 15, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
“I guess if I point that out, I should be prepared for accusations by some of being insulting or a nerd. It’s probably why most people refrain from commenting and certainly why I’ll get back into that silent running mode.”
Ok this is what it’s all about. I’ve found that the Machinima community esp when we have Machinima discussions people just brown nose each other, as soon as someone criticizes another piece of work, you just defend it! with the most stupid excuses, i mean my god. What Machinima really needs is to accept criticisms.
It’s how you take your work and improve it. I WANT You to tell me that that particular camera doesn’t work, or that bit of writing, or that action. The the mutual handjobbing each other needs to stop.
Its just like you’re bending each other over and ramming each other with the “oh yeah our good work, it’s all soo good, yeah oh yeah OH YEAH” when actually most of the stuff I’ve seen is pretty poor, BUT DARE we tell you how to improve and why we didn’t enjoy the piece!
I just wish people like Trace and her silly comments which has nothing to help the creator at all, just moan and cry because someone told another creator how to improve a Machinima WAH WAH WAH i mean GOD FORBID someone tell a Machinima creator what you REALLY feel like towards a piece, it’s just stupid and I’ve had enough of it, Accept that people are giving criticism to each other and Machinima is growing and expending to others. I’ve seen enough and so have most of you (you know who you are!) you see it all the time at premiers and discussions.
Comment by Robert — January 15, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
Eh Rob, your first comment on this post was fine, it was a fair critique. So was Zachs. I don’t think anyone including myself had a problem with that.
You should equally accept the further posts that liked the camera pans.
Coming in and saying this:
“I’m sorry, but if you think the Camera is fine then obviously you’ve got no clue on Cinematic language… You might wanna sort that out first before showing any Machinima.”
Was a little bit childish and why I went onto my rant about cinematics.
You should expect coming out with a statement like that, which no was not a critique in any way, just a slander against anyone who disagreed with you, you would have someone disagree with you.
Comment by Trace — January 15, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
Well it’s true, how is that camera fine? explain. You can argue all you want Trace but it’s fact.
Comment by Robert — January 15, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Fine as in “it will do” because i read it like “yeah that’s fine bit of framing, great camera work”
Comment by Robert — January 15, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Oh Rob!
It’s not the “fine” bit I care about it’s the
“youv’e got no clue on cinematic language”
and the
“Might wanna sort that out first before showing any machinima”
bits that I took offense to. Just because someone disagreed with your opinion?
As I said earlier, if it were purely a technical piece then the camera could do with some work. But if it was seen as a movie then the camera work fits in, it adds personality/warmth because it’s slightly off kilter. I’ve never seen that HL character before and felt any warmth towards it, with this movie I did.
Maybe we are just watching the thing differently? You as a technical piece, me as a short movie? That might be where the difference of opinion lies?
My fave movie of all time is “withnail and I”. The camerawork is shite on that movie. Could it be filmed better? Yeah. Does it change how I feel about that movie? No.
Comment by Trace — January 15, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
watching the trailer for withnail and I shows some very not-shite camerawork. well composed shots and a very good control over light and dark contrast.
Comment by Zachariah — January 15, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
and the term “nerd” I was actually including myself in that, being a machinima nerd that I am.
Comment by Trace — January 15, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
Yeah i still stand by my point that basic camera work is what shows off your work and if you’re gonna release a Machinima then yeah make sure the camera work is up to scratch! your using it to tell a story and show of the work you’ve done.
But for some reason you start going on about how it’s not needed and some other stuff i have no idea what you’re going into lol. make up your mind woman. I see it like you’re saying “oh we’re the only ones who watch this stuff so fuck the camera work it doesn’t matter long as it’s got art and it shows off stuff but not really oh and it’s never gonna be motion picture FILM quality but dunno why”. You’re confusing. I AM CONFUSED.
Comment by Robert — January 15, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
I suggest you watch the entire thing Zach, not 30 secs of the best shots.
Comment by Trace — January 15, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
Again it’s what i enjoy and like to see in more Machinimas. (GOOD CAMERA WORK) I think Cameras tell the story and keep the flow. Ut’s important for story telling and how you show emotion in a scene.
Comment by Robert — January 15, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
I’m a little overwhelmed over the amount of discussion that my film seems to have garnered here. It’s very flattering actually.
Thanks for all the feedback on the film and arguments aside, it’s actually been very helpful to understand what both sides of the community see when they watch this film.
Now I’ll be the first to say that maybe this wasn’t the most perfect thing. That’s the complete truth. I started this in December 2007 as something to alleviate the boredom of lying in bed with a broken ankle. After working on it steadily for a while, I was in the process of waiting for some other segments to add to the beginning and end which never arrived.
Finally, I decided to take a look at the film and ask myself whether or not I was happy with it. And to be honest, I was.
I know the music is slightly drowned out by the background noise, but I decided to leave that in since I wanted to give a the impression that the chaos was the largest part of the scene, with the singer being a small speck of calm happily moving through the middle.
And now, the camera.
Reading some of the posts up above, I can agree with most of the stuff that has been mentioned regarded framing, as it really is one of the weaker points of teh film.
Zachariah was actually one of the first people I showed this to, and I agree with his comments about the camera being bland, because it is.
However, that camera had to have been one of the finickiest parts of the whole project, since it’s an point that I had to animate in XSI, timed down to the frame, in order for it not to get ahead of or behind the singer. So really, I was concentrating more on the technical aspect of getting the darn thing to WORK rather than worrying about what bits of the singer were visible at any point.
Also, this project was designed to be a one shot take from the start, and so I accepted that I would have to make some sacrifices in the cinematography department in order to string together the chaos into one giant scene. So really, the only difference in camera angles is the camera moving ever so slightly out from the singer, in order to show more of the environment.
This film is actually only the second machinima I had started working on. Even though I’ve released a few this year, this was one of my earliest ideas which I decided to undertake. As a result, I learned almost all of my knowledge of hammer and the entity I/O system through putting this film together. It was also the first time I had used XSI, and so my animating skills on the camera are sorely lacking.
The reason why these weren’t corrected was due to one simple thing. I got bored.
I had left the film for so long in it’s final scripted state that I just wanted to get the damn thing done. I was happy enough with how the camera represented my scene, and making changes seemed to rotate the camera all over the place like a drunk gyroscope. The audio was actually played in-game, so I decided to leave it in as it was affected by the buildings and open spaces, giving it a nice echoey quality that I didn’t want to remove.
So there you have it. This is one of my earliest started works, and this shows.
However, I have been writing down ideas for machinima all year, from large scale films to small little sketches. Since I’m planning on pursuing a career in 3d animation, I want to use this year to create a large number of films of both machinima and 3d origin, so that I can start to work up a portfolio.
So don’t worry. I’ve been improving my skills, and hopefully this will be expressed in future works.
Sorry about the life story, but I thought I’d just let everyone know my own feelings on my film.
Thanks for all the support!
Comment by Mystfit — January 16, 2009 @ 1:41 am
This thread had 58 comments at its peak, discussion went a bit out of control which is why I shut down the comments here and had to remove some senseless ones (most of which were not made by people involved in the meat of the discussion above).
Civil discussion on the topic has resumed at the following thread, however:
http://z-studios.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=352
So if you’d like to share your thoughts on this topic, feel free to pipe in there, thanks!
Comment by Overman — January 19, 2009 @ 8:20 am
[…] blogged Mystfit’s latest piece this back on the 6th. Thankfully the streaming RSS feed from Phil Rice’s blog at z-studios.com, linked me to it […]
Pingback by Where’s My Gun? Films » Blog Archive » What a day for a daydream — February 21, 2009 @ 10:49 am
[…] may remember Mystfit from his Half-Life 2 film, Daydream, another beaut which is now on Vimeo as […]
Pingback by Overman’s Blog » Volant — May 14, 2009 @ 6:52 am