Cool compilation of total cliche. I really hate that pose. It's super cliched and over used, and worse are the instances where they hold that pose for like 5 minutes before looking up for even more "dramatic effect". It irks me as an animator as much as the Wilhelm Scream must irk a lot of sound designers (although can't be that many with the amount that still choose to use it)... which also irks me <_<

Sorry, /end rant

I use Fraps. It's like the mIRC of video capture. It's fairly inexpensive, and it's easy to pirate if you're so inclined. As jimnms mentioned, VirtualDub for editing/video compression. Bear in mind that, using a program like Fraps, the recorded video is uncompressed .AVI, and the filesizes are immense. Make sure your storage device is nice and spacious.

If your kid wants any sound design done for an intro sequence or anything, I'd be happy to whip something up. Example of something recent.

Yes, films can work for many different reasons. The number of reasons they can fail make the scales balance out nicely.

In case you haven't pinned it down yet, martial arts is not a favorite genre of mine. It's down there with animation and musicals. Despite this, I have seen films from each of these genres and enjoyed some of them.

I've never heard of the directors you mentioned but I can appreciate a meditative style. I didn't dislike Gus Van Sant's Gerry from years back, although I can't say I enjoyed it exactly. That was shot in the style you mentioned, I believe. So yes, I'm with you.

But if you expect me to meditate during the Raid, then I'm going to need more hard drugs. <- relax, this was a joke, I understand what you're saying about the role of story in the two kinds of films.
Jokes aside, however, I would respond to that point with this: which type of limited-story film allows for real-time reflection? The wall-to-wall actioner? Or an Andrey Tarkovskiy flick? Those slow-paced films can be downright transcendental if you're in the right frame of mind. I honestly can't ever see myself transcending anything while watching a martial arts flick. The story may be just as threadbare in each type of film but to my way of thinking, the meditative style brings more to the table by not only asking more of the audience but creating a setting where you can think about what you're watching while you watch. The Raid didn't involve me in that way. It didn't ask a thing of me. It just said, "here I am, no apologies, enjoy." Again, I am merely responding to your point about the role of story.

As far as my judgement of directors go, I wasn't really going there in my comments about The Raid. I was taking about the film only. If Bela Tarr or Apichatpong Weerasethakul (gesundheit!) made this film or that film, I'll only be able to say if the film was successful after I've watched it. If a director makes a film and it says what (s)he wants it to say and people see it and have a reaction...then that director is successful.

Despite what you may think, I do not have a checklist of things all good films must have before I declare them a success. Film is far too complex to attempt to codify all the things that make it good or bad.

>> ^Sarzy:

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.
Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.
Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.
I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.
I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)
>> ^shuac:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.

Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.

Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.

I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.

I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by silvercord.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Sound-Designer-Diego-Stocco-Experibass

yahtzee is becoming an ever increasing twat. So MW3 and BF3 are THE worst games of 2011?? REALLY? What exactly is so bad about them? That they are sequels? That they make tons of money and are not "original"? They also have great sound design, great graphics (at least BF3), solid single player campaigns (although BF3 still trails behind) and great multiplayer gameplay (even though, contrary to what most people believe, they are two very different types of game. One is twitchy, fast and completely unrealistic, the other focuses more on cooperation, realism, and overall giant maps).

I understand perfectly why he may dislike both MW3 and BF3, but disliking something doesn't automatically make it the worst of something.

By Yathzee's unbelievably moronic standards, both MW3 and BF3 are incomparably worse than Call of Juarez. Which, by the way he somehow forgot out of the list of the worst games. Think about that nugget for a second. Not to mention MANY other shitty games (and shitty by all standards. Bad graphics, bad gameplay, bad sound, buggy, etc).

Bachelor film project 2011 from The Animation Workshop.

As long as anyone can remember, the coming of The Undertaker has meant the coming of death. Until one day the grim promise fails and tension builds as the God fearing townsfolk of Backwater wait for someone to die

By: Bo Mathorne, Tue T. Sørensen, Arthur Gil Larsen, Rie C. Nymand, Mads Simonsen, Thomas H. Grønlund, Esben Jacob Sloth, Martin Holm-Grevy

Bo Mathorne - Director
Arthur Gil Larsen - Animation Lead
Mads Simonsen - Technical director
Thomas Grønlund - Animator
Rie Nymand - Animator
Esben Sloth - Art Director
Martin Holm-Grevy - Environment lead
Tue Toft Sørensen - Animator

Music composed and performed by:
Sons of Perdition

Voice actors:
The Tramp: Zebulon Whatley
The Minister: Lucien Dodge
Bubba: Phillip Sacramento
Towns people: Laura Post

Supervisors:
Michelle Nardone - Production supervisor
Katrine Talks - Production supervisor
Jessie Roland - Animation supervisor
Christian Kuntz - Animatic supervisor
Patrick Voetberg - Editing supervisor
Sunit Parekh-Gaihede - CG supervisor
Jared Embley - Rigging supervisor
Thomas Christensen - Sound supervisor
Svend Nordby - Technical supervisor

Consultants:
Peter Albrechtsen - Sound design consultant
Michael Valeur - Story consultant
Andrew Harris - CG Consultant
Mads Juul - Animatic consultant
Saschka Unseld - 3D animatic consultant
Anna Kubik - 3D animatic consultant
Jericca Cleland - Story consultant
Marec Fritzinger - Design consultant
Tomm Moore - Design consultant
Lawrence Marvit - Design consultant
Niels Bach - Background consultant

Thanks to:
Lasse Niragira Rasmussen - Additional animation
Jeppe Bro Døcker - Additional animation
Morten Thorning - Moral guidance
Oliver Kirchhoff - Scripting
Those Poor Bastards - Inspiration
Robert Bennett - Voice work
Lostandtaken.com - Textures
Friends and family

>> ^deletecredit:

Hi, I'm writing to ask if you could please remove my name from one of the video credits you've posted. It's under 'Man vs Woman'
[url redacted]

Could you please remove the name credited with sound design? It was a mistake and I don't want this coming up on searches. Thank you very much -- I'd really appreciate it...and happy birthday!

Best,

CG


This change has been made for you.

Hi, I'm writing to ask if you could please remove my name from one of the video credits you've posted. It's under 'Man vs Woman'
[url redacted]

Could you please remove the name credited with sound design? It was a mistake and I don't want this coming up on searches. Thank you very much -- I'd really appreciate it...and happy birthday!

Best,

CG

>> ^artician:

Music is from the Neverhood game soundtrack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginarium:_Songs_from_the_Neverhood
I don't think David Kamp (credited for "audio" in this short) was a composer or otherwise with that, so I hope they're not claiming the music as their own.


The audio made by David Kamp for this short was deleted and replaced by audio copypasta by a film student. It would be nice if someone could just find the original film. Here's the youtube description:

Uploaded by helenoir on Nov 12, 2010

As a sound design project I came across this 3D animation called Parallel Parking by Agile Films directed by Yum Yum. Sorry David Kamp I deleted your stuff... but this was a sound design project. All rights to the makers etc. Music by Terry Scott Taylor, and sound effects from Freesound. (Next time I'll do my own foley work)

I'm not going to go as far as saying that mine is better than the original (it's probably worse) but I'm no pro so just chill and enjoy.

Nice find. I love how much it highlights how important (and awesome) the sound design was in the game.

That doing sound design for exploding corpse magic is unusually good fun.

I Sooooo want to be a sound designer...

In regards to Crosswords wondering if there's more than one way to solve the puzzles in Portal 2, I'd say yes, but not to the same degree as the first game in my experience (played the single-player 3 times now). Many test chambers require one specific solution with not much room for creative puzzle solving, well, besides the trial and error process of figuring a puzzle out; it seems that the introduction of all these new mechanics (the three kinds of gel, hard-light walkways, forward/backward tractor beams, faith plates, etc.) cumulatively make for much more specific solutions with less room for player delineation from the designer's intended sequence of events to complete them. So, the instances of forging your own path are there, just not as abundant as in the original. The puzzles themselves are varied enough to make repeat playthroughs still enjoyable, imo. The fantastic sense of atmosphere and thoughtful level/sound design, writing, and story also help.

I haven't played the co-op yet, so no clue on that front.

About the DLC stuff, it seems likely Valve will soon release more level packs, hopefully free. It would make no sense to spend dev resources making paid hats/gestures/doo-hickies if all there is to enjoy them in is the out-of-the-box coop campaign. It would be a smart move to counterbalance paid, non-vital cosmetic stuff with more meaty-but-free maps to ensure a vital and thriving community, a less disgruntled one at that. Valve is usually good about making the essential stuff free, and the paid optional stuff at least theoretically attainable through other means (if TF2 is any indication, also Portal 2 hats/gestures are able to be Found by playing/achievements a la TF2, not sure to what capacity though).

Some advanced chambers of the single-player stuff and a Challenge mode would be nice too. But I digress, we'll see which direction Valve takes it soon enough! Just an already happy customer thinking out loud about how Valve could make it even betterer than it already is.