Alright everybody. I think its time we stop and examine the phrase science documentary. Poorly filming something with a Parkinson Cam doesnt magically transmute your shitty escapade into the woods into one. Traveling to exotic locale in search of some poorly defined construct of the human imagination (Loch Ness monster, ghosts, Samsquamptch) doesnt make what youre doing science. Do you know why? Ill tell you why: A documentary of a scientific expedition submits a hypothesis at the outset, then sets off in proving or disproving said hypothesis. Also, purposefully choosing the visual medium to tell your story carries with it a responsibility to FILM the important events. If you return to your editing suite and find that you do not have these events, or any sort of empirical evidence, it is not time to fill your documentary with local dipshits jabbing fat fingers at shady alcoves retelling the tale of the one time them-n-thar-cuzzin saw that weird shit that one night. Nay, it is time to close Adobe Premiere and go home. All you dildos have managed to do is set up a flimsy premise, then spend and an hour and a half carefully preparing the viewer for imminent disappointment. Furthermore, despite your person being absolutely riddled and lousy with cameras, taking a picture of your quarry seems to only cross your mind when you yourself were in front of a camera half-assedly explaining why you didnt. Sell your equipment. Wal-Mart needs shelf-stockers.
Posted on: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:22:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015