Crispy

Members
  • Content count

    4702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

556 Good

About Crispy

  • Rank
    Contributor
  1. Quote:Original post by Rain 7 Quote:Original post by Crispy Quote:Original post by Rain 7 Please explain the difference betweeen "standard" music exposure and game music exposure... Off the top of your head, name three game music makers. No, name one. Lol. To be perfectly blunt, it is clear you know very little about the gaming music scene. I can name off dozens of composers from the video game music genre off the top of my head without breaking a sweat. I believe that when you say that you have "been in the industry before" you really mean "I don't think my music is cut out for this type of medium" which is fine. I would advise you to perhaps check a different forum as this one currently houses GAME developers, and GAME musicians and GAME editors and etc..etc. Have you tried the AudioStreet or Myspace forums? Those probably would be more beneficial to you as they are not affiliated with games. I used to be a regular here. I didn't register just to post this. I know quite a few names around here and thus figured I'd post here first. And I do realize that you're right; I just hope you won't assume that games, even on this forum, are all there is to life.
  2. Quote:Original post by Jarrod1937 if you're good you will get to be known, no matter what path you take. That's naive enough to be cute. Obviously you've either succeeded (good for you) or just read a couple of success stories (not so good for you). You might want to take a look at my previous post in this thread, though (hint: it will direct you to the OP). The same goes for EDI. At this point I'm quite unhappy about not being able to delete this thread since it's obviously a lost cause. outRider: I did think about that. But setting up a server for that is a little above my capabilities.
  3. Good - the original thread counts for exactly squat. For some reason I'm stuck with justifying myself against singled out examples, not rules. People can't even recognize a round-about question: you quite literally only have a miniscule chance of knowing a game music maker or their work if you play the damn things. Consider yourself lucky to be in that 1-2% of people who know a name or two. Now list the artists you know off the shelf.
  4. Quote:Original post by Rain 7 Please explain the difference betweeen "standard" music exposure and game music exposure... Off the top of your head, name three game music makers. No, name one.
  5. I'm familiar with that - in fact I have experience with that. What you're suggesting includes four factors, three out of which are very unwanted: lobbying, hard work (the wanted factor), risk and greatly misdirected exposure. Game music, like film music, is not the same as "standard" music and is essentially a trap door to a world that I don't want to get into because I've been there and I didn't like it; the reasons are full of subtleties and I'd prefer to not waste bandwidth on justifying my preferences.
  6. Quote:Original post by Dave Is this game related at all? No.
  7. I apologise to people who deserve it. This topic might be of interest to many (depending on the quality of the replies), although it is not programming-related. My aim is not to invoke a discussion (or even to promote myself really), but merely to seek advice (on how to promote myself). I'll try and be concise. I am an artist working in the electronic music field (as slightly more than a hobby, but greatly less than a full-time job). Unfeatured - I've had close to zero exposure. And I'm not familiar with how to impose myself on what-not it is that I should be imposing myself on. The problem is that I don't have the money to hire an agent and I don't have the time, or that other thing - interest - to do the lobbying. Simply put, I'm looking for the simplest, most easily exploitable way(s) of exposing my work electronically. As things are, just uploading something is pointless - you need a catalyst of some sort. Since this really is not the place to advertise myself, I'll post the two links that you can click to listen to my stuff with a note of discretion. Sure, you're free to comment, but comments and a friendly pat on the back are not (no longer) that which I'm really looking for (you can pat away, though). my MySpace account my AudioStreet account The sole reason I'm posting this thread in the Lounge instead of the Sound and Music forum is the combination of two ratios: experience and exposure - you can figure out the rest. If anyone sees this as blatant self-promotion that shouldn't belong here, feel free to close this thread. The promotional section of this post is: you can always distribute the above links to your friends if you're inclined to do so.
  8. Dont see the fantastic four.

    Quote:Original post by stimarco There are movies that focus on storytelling. There are movies that focus on giving you a theme park ride. You really shouldn't view the world as black and white. Quote: A blockbuster movie should be seen as a theme park ride, not a storytelling medium. Its purpose is to pluck at your emotional strings like a virtuouso. Spielberg is generally viewed as one of the best at this sort of filmmaking. By who? Can you please expand on the topic of Spielberg and explain to me why precisely you think (that others think) that he is one of the best directors to tell a story through visual catalysts? Quote: The Hollywood formulae aren't even all that old ... On the contrary - they're older than the TV. Quote: ... -- the very first movies made were actually documentaries (of local events) ... Wrong - to the most part. While seeds of documentalism (in that some of the earliest film fragments actually showed precisely the events that their names described: "Workers exiting a factory", etc) did exist in the earliest stage of film (as a form of art) - at the end of the 19th century, 1) they wouldn't qualify as documentaries in contemporary terms and at that time no such term existed in the first place, 2) the industry was driven by fantasy-driven short films, such as "Buffalo Bill's Shooting Skill", "The Sneeze", etc, which were literally staged and gave rise to verious fictional genres, including foremost the western, comedy and fantasy genres. Think Melies! In conclusion, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the first movies were documentaries. The roots were there, yes, but that's about it. Quote: After all, "Fahrenheit 9/11" didn't do too badly in the Box Office, and there isn't any CGI or action in that at all. This is a Good Thing. Out of pure inquisitveness (I'm just poking at you - don't take this too seriously), why exactly is that a Good Thing? Quote: And Hollywood's marketing machine needs to study its own clients' output more closely too: not all films advertised as high-octane blockbusters actually fit that description. A lot of complaints I hear about films are often caused by audiences feeling duped into paying to see a film that wasn't what they _wanted_ to see. This is mostly a marketing problem than a directing or production one. This is not a problem. And here's why: statistically, 90% of the movies that come out of Hollywood do not generate a profit (they don't even make back the money that was invested in them). As weird as this may seem, that's part of the business plan. Why? I am not entirely sure - probably to keep Hollywood's dominance in the industry: by releasing 300 titles every year you guarantee constant screening all around the world at all times. This produces a habit - much like a caffeine. Most people would be lying if they told you they didn't go to see those average Hollywood productions (a few titles to keep things clear: "Cellular", "Paycheck", "Catwoman", etc), which can all be considered crap. People do watch these movies and that creates a habit. Imagine if each studio in Hollywood only released their best titles - usually 1-2/year (if that much!). We'd be getting 5-15 true films out of Hollywood every year, tops. What would we do the rest of the time? Watch European movies? Now that doesn't sound too good... In other words - the system may not be flawless, but decades have shown that it works and it's almost impossible to break down (unless you start looking at the major league of players, such as Sony buying over Universal, etc). Quote: Considering the hit-and-miss marketing of videogames, it's probably about time we started looking at how this process is handled today. I'd like to see fewer "career" marketeers and a bit more input from those actually making the product. Three words: will. not. happen. Here's why: let's look at the timeline of an average European (usually indie) movie and an average Hollywood (studio-sponsored) movie: In Europe an idea is usually harvested (or conceived) by the director who either teams up with or buys the rights from a screenwriter. He/she then tries to find a producer whose job is to come up with and obtain a budget (plan) for the movie - the producer's sources are usually TV networks (such as Canal+, BBC, etc), companies with interest in on-screen marketing (such as car companies), private sponsors and state funds. In a traditional European production, the director hires the producer and can therefore fire him. The director is paramount - the film is his or her baby. In Hollywood (and by that I mean the whole of the US), in a non-indie production, the studio hires a large number of people whose job is to find promising stories. The studios probably get tens if not hundreds of script submissions daily from all kinds of folk and it is the job of these script validators to find the hidden gems in the haystack. Once a potential gem is found, the script validator writes a short summary for the studio heads and the idea is pitched (usually by the author), after which it is decided by most likely the least competent people (on a relative scale!) in the studio - the studio heads - whether the idea gets a green light or not. If the green light is given, a (number of) producer(s) is/are picked who start setting up the project. Among all other people, the director is hired (by the producer(s)). Since he is hired on contract, the director usually has almost no definitive say in what the movie will turn out as. His job is to direct, basing his decisions on the orders that come from the producer(s). The director can be fired at any moment during the production and a new one found. This has happened many times and it will keep happening. To be above this system you have to have an adequate background to back yourself up - being Ridley Scott or David Lynch certainly helps. That is precisely why you so rarely see what the true vision of the director is in Hollywood movies. Take David Fincher's Alien3 as an example - Fincher refuses to talk about the movie because the producers literally made his life a living hell during the shoot. He'd get the day's script in the morning, completely changed by people he'd never met and had to make the film work. Cameron says similar problems existed when he shot Aliens - not so much regarding the script, but whining about the schedule by the studio.
  9. post pictures of your mom.

    She birthed me at an old age.
  10. Dont see the fantastic four.

    Quote:Original post by Sneftel Well, sure. The main commonality, as I see it, among good comic book adaptations is an artistic vision that understands what the strengths of the original franchise are and how to leverage them. To me the most important thing is the quality of the interpretation. I don't really care if the movie is true or untrue to the original game or comic, but I do care about the satisfaction I get from watching the movie. For instance, Elektra had really good visuals (and I don't mean the special effects!) and the storyline was not below the Hollywood average (although I'll have to admit the term "Hollywood" is really either expanding very fast or propagating (also very fast) as many European movies are using pretty much the same schematics. What's more important is that you can't really blame them because it really does sell and I guess that's ultimately that thing what matters). In short, if the director has managed to create a unique world, whether it is based on some other kind of material or not, it doesn't really matter what the strengths of the original thing were. For instance, I am one of those people who thinks that Doom II was one of the best games of all time (on a relative scale), but I will have no qualms if the movie won't hold true to the games or will have the balance off (either too far towards fantasy or too far towards the games (which we already know won't be the case) ) because in the end what matters to me, as a serious viewer, is the experience I get from watching it. And the experience doesn't come from the games - it comes from the screenwriter, the director and the DP (I should rightfully also mention the set artist here). The least I can do is respect the way they balanced their version. After all - whatever it'll be, it'll be nothing more and nothing less than an interpretation. All you really need to do to understand what that means is to look up the word in a dictionary. Quote:Quote:It's not that the movies do not deliver - it's that the audience is becoming increasingly lazier and increasingly more demanding. Which is understandable, but makes these kinds of discussions very difficult to assess.Hm, this sounds interesting. Personally, I would assume that if anything, audiences are getting more savvy, though admittedly, blockbuster summer action fare doesn't seem to bear this opinion out. Perhaps you could expand on this? I'll bring and example using one of my favorite titles as breakdown material: Dark City (1998, Alex Proyas). However, let's start with the visual quality and with a slightly different title. As of mid-1990s, CGI has become one of the defining aspects of the visual style of most big-budget movies. As a more radical exmaple, take Black Hawk Down, that clearly emphasizes reality and, to a large part, documentalism (yes - that's right) over fantasy. To achieve the most realistic effect, Ridley Scott hired Asylum to make the film look as realistic as possible. If you don't know which scenes they enhanced in post, then that's okay because it was the aim to make CGI look as realistic as possible without having a clue where CGI was actually being used (I might add that it was actually used pretty extensively throughout the movie, notably in the helicopter crash scenes). Since there really isn't a suitable movie from 20, 30, 50 years ago that BHD could be compared to, let's pick something at least remotely similar, such as Where Eagles Dare. When Where Eagles Dare was released in 1968, the audience accepted it quote well and it became a relatively successful box office hit. The same applied to BHD in 2001. The key question is: if released in 2001, would WED have been as successful as BHD? The answer: no! And here's where I'll use Dark City as a point of reference. Prior to shooting Alien: Resurrections, director Jean-Piere Jeunet, as this film was his first and so far the only Hollywood job (he was hired for his visual style in Delicatessen and The City Of Lost Children, both of which somewhat resemble Dark City by the way), counted the number of scenes that there are in an average Hollywood horror movie (paying special attention to the Alien-series thus far). What he concluded was around 700 (a little more actually) shots per movie, which, for a 90-minute movie, makes 7.7 seconds per shot. Dark City takes this tendency to an extreme and averages around 2 seconds per shot. Two seconds is a hell of a small amount of time. What's more - this imposes some very important predicates on both the film makers as well as the audience. 1) The director: has to maintain a solid, fluid storyline throughout the 90-120 minutes while cutting from one angle to another very often. This is not a trivial task - even such "minor details" as continuity multiply in importance by tenfolds. 2) The editor: there is generally a lot more material to work through for the editor, which quite obviously requires a lot more time on his/her part, plus makes finding the precise cutting positions much more difficult. Sorting the material (deciding which shots to leave out) becomes much more demanding in terms of both time and results. 3) The viewer: when you reduce the duration of a shot, you automatically increase the pace of the movie. Every time the cameral angle changes, the first thing for the viewer to do is to establish the shot. This poses a recursive problem to the director/DP: each consecutive shot needs to establish itself quickly and identifiably or no one's going to be able to follow the movie. What this does to the viewer, is requiring a lot more energy to be spent on responding to the visual changes than on analyzing the contents of the film. While you can choose to ignore certain elements of the plot, if you skip a couple of shots, it might be difficult to get back on track again. For instance, in Resident Evil, during conversations, if you do count the seconds, you'll find that the average time per shot (and let's be clear - a shot is a collection of individual frames that are logically consecutive, that take place between two cuts) is around 3 seconds. As you get to the action scenes, you'll find that the average duration of a shot is reduced to 0.5-1.5 seconds. That's is not a lot of time to really understand what's going on. What is important, is that the audiences nowadays expect precisely that. I saw Where Eagles Dare earlier today on TCM and I didn't really spend too much energy on trying to count how long each shot was, but my best guess is that each shot lasted around 15 seconds. That's a lot of time for your brain to analyze what or who is in the frame and what's going on in general. For superb comparison, try watching the following pairs of films/programmes in a sequence: XXX (2002) - Rope (1948) 24 (2001-?) - any film by Tarkovsky (he died in 1986) That accounts for the "demanding" part: the audience demands an increasingly faster pace in movies and, with all proudness, Hollywood can say that it does deliver. We want it and we're getting it. There's one huge but, though. The "but" lies in the fact that we're demanding more and more information, but we're not willing to process it. This makes us lazy. Can you honestly say how many cuts there were in your favorite action sequence? Take a guess. And then multiply it by five. That's right - we're not processing much of the information at all that we see in movies. You might say that we're "lazy" or you might say that we're "too demanding" to want that much information in the first place. This has two kinds of effect - on the viewer as well as the director: the director is faced with the task of reducing the amount of information contained withing each shot: each shot has to be simpler visually and less demanding on the account of plot-driven elements. What this means is that information has to be diluted, actually making it far simpler to miss. For the viewer this means that we are not following the film in its entirety, but we trust our minds in the hands of the director to carve everything out of rock for us and then paint it red. We no longer accept word games as answers to plot points - we want a VO (voice over) to explain things to us. We require visual proof and outright spelling to tell us what's going on and we refuse to deal in symbols to force us to figure out what's going on. This is where Constantine becomes relevant. I usually don't like a movie for no reason - it has to surprise me in some way and I couldn't say that I've seen too few movies in my life to not know what is new and what's not. What Constantine did is that it didn't spell out the story - it told it. There are far more symbols in that film than there are in most other Hollywood movies - whether they are all intentional, I do not know. For instance, when you watch Stalker by Tarkovsky, you won't survive the film without spending the majority of your brain power on trying to identify symbols. It will simply not work as you won't understand the film. Constantine has a fair share of chracter-driven symbols - both visual as well as semiotic - to keep you thinking. All you need to do is identify these symbols. But we're not used to doing that anymore. Show Stalker to an average 20-year-old today and they won't care for it. Why? Because they won't understand it. That is why the average viewer these days is lazy. Just plain lazy. And that's why many people underrate Constantine: it's not just a film about an exorcist - it's a film about an exorcist with a real character. I hope my rambling didn't cause you to fall asleep. [Edited by - Crispy on July 8, 2005 10:58:43 PM]
  11. Dont see the fantastic four.

    Quote:Original post by Sneftel Quote:Original post by Crispy I'm sorry, but I think people are genuinely prejudiced about the comic book/game adaption "genre". The movies that are made may not be so much true to the original, but that in no way defines the movie. Watch it for what it's worth, not for what some people thing it should be worth. I'm not attacking them for being untrue to the original; in fact, if anything, they're TOO true to the original--or, at least, true to the wrong parts. Look at the original "Batman"... it COULD have been entirely faithful to the comic book, complete with campy plots, campier villains, and the campiest catchphrases since they invented camp. Instead, Tim Burton found Batman's real core--a man of means trying to defeat his inner demons by cleansing his metropolis of crime--and just ran with it. The Joker turned from a family-friendly half-mad clown into a vengeful Bacchan whose psychological dirge was at once passionate and mechanical. Gotham City was a fallen Rome with pillars of steam and rusted metal. That's how you do it right, goshdarnit. In contrast, what do you imagine happens when your average producer sits down with your average writer and your average director and your average just-purchased comic book franchise license? "It's going to be so great", one of them says. "We'll make a movie that's at once a great movie, and true to the original series. Everyone digs Fooman's costume, and his kickass catchphrases! And that romantic subplot is SO Nora Ephrom... we can just copy and paste it from the comic book! We'll need to change that villain's motivation, or it won't play in Chicago, but mostly, this thing will write itself, because it's already written!" That's what defines this genre, which is dangerously close to actually being a real genre: A movie which tries to excuse its dramatic shortcomings by being true to a comic book. I'm not saying you can't be true to the comic book--for God's sake, look how good Sin City was--but you can't just pick and choose elements that you thought were cool, and later wonder why it didn't all hold together. My long reply just got eaten by the forums and I'm not going to retype it. To sum up: 1) the director is generally not the weakest link - at least not in Hollywood productions as most decisions are made above the director: if you're going to look for faults, first look at the producer(s); 2) using a single movie as a point of reference is not enough. I personally try to analyze each movie without any point of reference and all of a sudden many movies appear a lot better than most people consider them. It's not that the movies do not deliver - it's that the audience is becoming increasingly lazier and increasingly more demanding. Which is understandable, but makes these kinds of discussions very difficult to assess. PS: why is it not okay for some people to just read other people's opinions and not impose their own without an explanation?
  12. Dont see the fantastic four.

    Quote:Original post by Sneftel How could a movie based on a comic book be bad? Electra, Constantine, Daredevil, The Punisher, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen were so good! EDIT: Oh, and Hellboy! I forgot Hellboy! Or repressed it! Sorry to confront you like this, but in my opinion you just made a really big mistake by attacking the adaption genre in general. This shows prejudice and not much regard for the individual movies themselves. Without having read the comic for some or played the game for others, I thought Constantine was way above good - in fact I'd give it 9/10 any day (and I can back my claims up) and Electra, although very heavily dissed, when I saw it, totally surprised me with how not bad it actually was. I want to see Electra again (I've seen Constantine twice and it failed to become any worse than the first time around), though. I haven't seen Daredevil or The Punisher, so I can't comment on those and I agree that The League was something definitely to be missed, but Hellboy was a very good movie - well above the average line production that Hollywood spews out daily. I'm sorry, but I think people are genuinely prejudiced about the comic book/game adaption "genre". The movies that are made may not be so much true to the original, but that in no way defines the movie. Watch it for what it's worth, not for what some people think it should be worth. I'll stop my rant here.
  13. I'm going to have to go with Resident Evil - the one where Michelle Rodriguez says "poor bastard" at the woman in the tank in the first half of the movie (before they've shut the computer down) and as soon as she walks out of the frame, the camera zooms in, the music dissipates and suddenly the woman's eyes open an her hand is very abruptly on the glass. While I am not a big fan of Anderson's work in general, I think he did a well above average job with Resident Evil (even though I enjoyed Romero's original script - I believe I happened to read the final draft - a lot more than Anderson's, which made it into principal photography). Pulling off a shocker after basically spelling it out to the viewer that "a shocker is coming - get ready - aight, any time now" is somewhat of an art and there's actually several of those moments in Resident Evil. Still, the one I described above, is, in my opinion, easily the best. Your turn.
  14. What a fine and completely normal day

    Wasn't GameDev dow... *phlump! and a blinding flash*. Urh - hi.
  15. GM vs MS

    No, this isn't a standoff thread between the two companies. Instead, I found this little bit on the Internet that is quite funny - I just I hope I'm not reposting. There's several versions of the story available on the web - I'll post two sources: Quote:source (near the bottom of the page) At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the gallon. In response to Mr. Gates' comments, General Motors issued the following press release (by Mr. Welch himself, the GM CEO). If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics: 1. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you'd have to buy a new car. 2. Occasionally your car would just die on the motorway for no reason, and you'd have to restart it. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this, restart and drive on. 3. Occasionally, executing a manoeuvre would cause your car to stop and fail to restart and you'd have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this too. 4. You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you bought a "Car 95" or a "Car NT". But then you'd have to buy more seats. 5. Amiga would make a car that was powered by the sun, was twice as reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive - but it would only run on five percent of the roads. 6. Macintosh car owners would get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars which would make their cars go much slower. 7. The oil, engine, gas and alternator warning lights would be replaced with a single "General Car Fault" warning light. 8. People would get excited about the "new" features in Microsoft cars, forgetting completely that they had been available in other cars for many years. 9. We'd all have to switch to Microsoft gas and all auto fluids but the packaging would be superb. 10. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt. 11. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off. 12. If you were involved in a crash, you would have no idea what happened. 13. They wouldn't build their own engines, but form a cartel with their engine suppliers. The latest engine would have 16 cylinders, multi-point fuel injection and 4 turbos, but it would be a side-valve design so you could use Model-T Ford parts on it. 14. There would be an "Engium Pro" with bigger turbos, but it would be slower on most existing roads. 15. Microsoft cars would have a special radio/cassette player which would only be able to listen to Microsoft FM, and play Microsoft Cassettes. Unless of course, you buy the upgrade to use existing stuff. 16. Microsoft would do so well, because even though they don't own any roads, all of the road manufacturers would give away Microsoft cars free, including IBM! 17. If you still ran old versions of car (ie. CarDOS 6.22/CarWIN 3.11), then you would be called old fashioned, but you would be able to drive much faster, and on more roads! 18. If you couldn't afford to buy a new car, then you could just borrow your friends, and then copy it. 19. Whenever you bought a car, you would have to reorganise the ignition for a few days before it worked. 20. You would need to buy an upgrade to run cars on a motorway next to each other. Here's another source (scroll down a little) that only lists 10 points instead of 20. Since I couldn't find any official release of this anywhere, this could very well just be another bit of that Internet buzz. But it is quite amusing to read the first time around. PS: GameDev's acting up again like it did a long time ago. For instance I've tried to submit this post several times now and it also took me 3-4 attempts to log in until I didn't get the white screen.