NLE editing downside: Too Easy, Too Quick

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:37 am

FWIW, what trailer(s) were you watching when this rant came to you? MI:3? Da Vinci Code? I know the latter certainly contains the requisite rapid-cross-dissolves between action shots with Latin choral music ;)

NLE has so much to offer that I'm more than willing to accept a proliferation in crappily-edited movies possibly partially due to its omnipresence. I don't watch them anyway ;)

Post by **freddiesykes** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:58 am

This is a good oppurtunity to ask a question that has been bothering me for some time now. Do you think all the great editors of the past fifty or so years who have been using standard editing procedures for probably just as long use NLE now? I'm sure some have switched, some have stayed, but what do you think in general? Kind of pointless question, but worth thinking about.

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:44 am

Evan Kubota wrote:I'm not sure that NLEs specifically have anything to do with it - shrinking attention spans certainly do, and this could be argued as necessitating a change in the form of films by their creators, rather than the other way around. If audiences honestly felt that most films were "too fast" you'd hear about it. In my experience most people seem comfortable with the pace and editing of current Hollywood offerings - which is somewhat frightening.

I'm surprised at this response. It's completely because of NLE.

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:52 am

freddiesykes wrote:This is a good opportunity to ask a question that has been bothering me for some time now. Do you think all the great editors of the past fifty or so years who have been using standard editing procedures for probably just as long use NLE now? I'm sure some have switched, some have stayed, but what do you think in general? Kind of pointless question, but worth thinking about.

HBO runs a montage of their shows and the montage demonstrates that they care about the cut, and the content. I saw one recently that compared to what else was on was basically retro, straightforward, creative editing with excellent moments from different shows.
I was shocked at the music that they used, I thought it was a poor choice for an otherwise well edited piece.

Editors, Producers and Directors have been hybrided into what are now called "Predators", aka Producers/Editors who can also direct if necessary. But from what I have seen, they do all three tasks at average ability, but the cost savings of having one person do two or three tasks is enough to please the bean counters. I maintain that collaboration is the backbone of the film and creative industries, yet it is that very collaboration that is under attack by our digital vendors trying to sell everyone on doing every step themselves and refering to shooting in film as being horse and buggy.

Brilliant writers who don't edit aren't being hired anymore, and that is why the quality has dropped.

Post by **freddiesykes** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 7:38 pm

Interesting Alex, thank you.

Post by **audadvnc** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:05 pm

Editors, Producers and Directors have been hybrided into what are now called "Predators"

Isn't that word, "Hybrated"? Or the study of such, Hybrology?

I suppose the argument could be made for any computer based technology making work "too simple". Imagine the increased quality of posts on this forum if we all had to write them out longhand and mail them in to Andreas?

Post by **teadub** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 1:45 am

...there has been homicide, since Cain murdered Able. And there has been bad cutting immediately following LumiÃƒÂ¨re's train. Some who argue that this new vernacular is the cinema's demise. For those I would suggest the films of Bela Tarr, ...

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 1:50 am

freddiesykes wrote:Interesting Alex, thank you.

You are welcome, by the way, if any news station or national channel needs a promo guy who primarily writes brilliantly, I had the privilege of working with a very talented person redoing his demo reel a bunch of times.

Apparently during one of his stints the TV channel he worked for ended up improving their news ratings and tied for the best ratings in their market.

audadvnc wrote:
Editors, Producers and Directors have been hybrided into what are now called "Predators"
Isn't that word, "Hybrated"? Or the study of such, Hybrology?

I suppose the argument could be made for any computer based technology making work "too simple". Imagine the increased quality of posts on this forum if we all had to write them out longhand and mail them in to Andreas?

haha, Hybrided is what happens when a video guy trys to right, my own version of hybranding.

Post by **David M. Leugers** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:17 am

Very interesting. I have to agree with the lament from Roger that started this thread. Not that quick editing has no place in a movie, I feel that it is all too often done in place of good story telling. Lots of whiz bang but little in the way of generating emotion and texture.

Check out "Fargo" or one of the other great films by the Coen brothers. I understand they refuse to edit digitally and still edit work prints the old fashioned way. Hasn't hurt their films any...

Editing on a computer is nice and easy. The seduction to use all the fancy qimmicks can be just too compelling to avoid. I think of it as the "Francis Ford Coppala Syndrome". Couldn't resist the endless takes/endless possibilities/endless manipulation that one faces when one CAN... Like any project, a film needs a strong sense of direction and decision making to be a successful endeavor (boxoffice not withstanding). It is not the technology, but the result of not mastering the art that is the problem as I see it in lots of films today.

David M. Leugers

Post by **tlatosmd** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:13 am

The way I think about it, rest assured, there's a 1 frame limit and they can't cross it. From there, the pendulum must swing back as soon as audiences grow tired from ever-the-same looks.

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:15 am

Why not "George Lucas syndrome"? Other symptoms include only making your most popular films available in 'digitally enhanced' versions with crappy CGI additions ;)

Post by **reflex** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:05 am

Evan Kubota wrote:I'm not sure that NLEs specifically have anything to do with it - shrinking attention spans certainly do ...

I don't think shrinking attention spans are the culprit. If that were the case, modern feature films would be twelve minutes long.

The frenetic pace of action movie editing seems to be a direct descendent of the MTV cutting style - fast and furious. It migrated to commercials years ago, and it was only logical that it would jump into the film world.

I'd agree with Roger that NLE made the entire thing possible. Try that with a razor blade and you'd end up with thousands of six frame "shots" to string together.

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:30 am

"I'd agree with Roger that NLE made the entire thing possible."

Enabling is different than causing, which I realize you didn't explicitly state.

Your average Hollywood feature can maintain the attention of an average American moviegoer because things are constantly happening. Yes, the film may be two hours or so, but the segments between specific 'actions' are rarely more than 30-40 seconds.

I agree that MTV and music videos in general probably have some hand in it.

FWIW, when I edit in FCP I feel no compulsion to add additional cuts or make my shots shorter just because it doesn't entail physically cutting the print. It still takes time (only a second or two) to make additional cuts. Also, you have to plan for that kind of thing while shooting. You can't take a project with a specific number of setups and arrive at twice that number of shots, unless you do a lot of jump cutting (or you're Tony Scott).

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 12:54 pm

Evan Kubota wrote:Why not "George Lucas syndrome"?

Boy, isn't that the truth.... :roll:

Roger

Post by **S8 Booster** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:18 pm

a bit offside - abt 2 years ago i went to cinema with junior to see a low budged film derived from a tv series for kiddos - it was apparently negative cut - splices visible but the edit was great - classic.

whatta joy.

s//hoot