I *like* this!

If you didn't have the constraints, and if you had more time and could expand your film out even longer, I'd say you should "do a Ridley" and ditch the narration as that was only weak point for me.

Nicely shot, good camera work, I thought the guy on the run was a pretty decent actor delivering possibly one of the best performances I've seen on the FXHome cinema to date. He wasn't over the top and delivered his rant with plenty of conviction.

For 48 hours this was a great little short and highly entertaining.

4/5!

Good stuff, I really enjoyed this. It has a real style and vision to it.

I agree with Respite that it could do without the voiceover. Not because the voiceover is bad - in fact, it's rather good - but because it's always more satisfying as a viewer to have the story told through subtler and more integrated means, rather than a disconnected Story Man.

Then again, telling a story is difficult at the best of times, let alone in 48 hours. Either way, really good stuff, I'd just recommend trying harder to work in different storytelling methods in future.

Love the shoulderpads.

This was entirely bad-ass on several different levels and I liked almost everything about it.

I agree with the others though, You didn't need the narrative so much... I say this only because whoever the narrator was... I'm assuming it was the cop, but I could be wrong. At the beginning his voice sounded like it was too high pitched and not old enough to sound like a seasoned adult cop... he sounded like a teenager? Plus he sounded like he was trying to sell you something but didn't believe his own pitch. It's like he had no emotional investment in what he was doing and was just reading off a page and couldn't wait to get it over with, unless that's what you were going for? I don't know... perhaps he was too relaxed or something?

But on the other hand... the narrative really changed pace and demeanor, it made me lean in closer to my screen and say "What"!? I was thinking... "is this the same guy"? Because the narrative sounded really fantastic right at the end of the short when the cop and the fugitive are screaming at each other. Very bad-ass and well acted BTW, You can tell by the subtle tone changes in his voice that he's coming to some sort of life changing realization. Plus his voice wasn't all high pitched.

Thanks everyone for the positive comments!

I will say that personally, while I am not usually a fan of omniscient narration (Marathon, Cover's Story) I do like first-person "here's what's up" narration - it's a more clever way to link the montage and have it develop the character at the same time. I think by keeping the narration in there it establishes the cop's snide opinion on the situation at hand; which in turn provides character background for both the cop and the blogger.

The biggest things we attempted to do here was to sell sci-fi, and not make it trite or cheesy. The most effective way to accomplish this is, in my opinion, to establish locationally the 'world' in which the characters exist, and establish the climate (politically, emotionally) that they're living at.

The costumes, locations, and most of the lighting and cinematography helped us to sell the 'world', I think, but it was the first-person spiel that really helps us set the climate of things, and establish mood. I suppose I don't see this narration feeling like 'Story Man' because we're shown the person talking and we see how his actions link to his words. He's disgusted with rebellion, and we see him spying on a rebel, etc. Could we have done something more subtle and simpler, like 'My Name is Harold Allen' (which is on DVXUser)? Yeah. But that wouldn't have been on the scale we wanted. It would be........difficult, if not impossible to set the same 'things are dire' scale using exposition and not monologue and still be able to wrap it all into 7 minutes.

Still, though, I see the qualms. As for the cop's voice - that's Trevor, by the way - I dunno why it sounds strange to you, that's just how he talks. We have a running joke that it's vaguely Canadian mixed with British.

Ultimately, though, his voice reminds us of a younger Hugo Weaving, and that was perfect considering the ending montage of 'V for Vendetta' was a huge influence here. Other obvious influences (if you've caught them) are Equilibrium, Logan's Run and THX1138. We're trying out working homage into our films - especially in genres we're not adept at, like scifi - so I couldn't pass up the opportunity here to lift elements from my favorite science/political fiction/comics and use them in the first film I've done where I'm required to have such things.

We obviously didn't want the whole 'kids playing adults' in this one, but we assumed that if we incorporated a futuristic setting well enough, that the other elements would more naturally fall into place. Hopefully they did!

Basically, how I imagine Atomic could do scifi is pretty perfectly executed in this film. I'm sure with more time (or a longer running time) we could convey more in a different tone; but the themes and 'world' we've established here - however obvious - are what I've always wanted.

Anyhow, I'm really glad everyone has enjoyed the film. As I always mention, that's our #1 goal. Anyone catch the final shots matching THX?

Things I liked a lot:

Basically everything on the technical end. Cinematography was top quality given the time restraints. Editing was also very effective as well. Sound design left a bit to be desired (the gunshots just before the cop corners the guy by the fence sounded canned and very fake - especially given that there didn't seem to be any other ambience underneath it), but still worked well. The costumes, while obviously not big budget award winners - did their job well enough for the short time you had to make them.

Things I didn't care for so much:

The narration, as stated, is a bit tired by this point - especially with your previous track records using it. Especially here, it really does seem like a crutch you used to get you through the 48 hour thing. And this really leads into my main problem - the story.

There is nothing that bothers me more than when a message or an idea is the driving focus of a movie. This seems to happen a lot with you guys. The movie should be driven by the story and the characters. Whatever messages or commentary naturally fit into the framework of the story - so be it. But when the message takes over and BECOMES the story, I have a problem with it.

The story of the only man to break the order of the perfect society is an intriguing one. But it takes a backseat to the cop's narration (another reason why the narration bothers me even more here than in your previous work), filled with philosophical and socio-political musings that frustratingly shortchanges the main story.

Watching it, it felt very much like another of your guys' films "Messages", which I also wasn't too fond of for the same reason. Cover's Story and Marathon focused more on the story aspect, but still had elements of the overly philosophical messages creeping in at the seams.

It's something I've noticed mostly in student films, and something I'm also guilty of too. But it's something I'm trying as much as possible to get away from. Once I realized this trend in student films, I thought back on all the movies that I love. They're all expertly told stories with characters that you care about. Sure, there are messages and themes weaved in, but they are usually done naturally, oftentimes probably without even the intention of the director. I can't really say I was biting my nails about whether the main character lived or died - or if the cop would let him live. I knew he would - because the narration already gave me the inkling he would (despite the fact that he was really given no reason not to just kill him given the story up to that point).

I think it's natural to focus on these message at our age, because we want to seem important and get our opinions on things across (god knows I've done this too much too). I hope that as we grow older we'll move away from this need and just focus on telling good stories.

You guys have improved leaps and bounds since we've all started out in terms of technicals - but I'm still seeing a lot of the same lacking story problems and over-reliance on themes and messages (and voiceovers ) that bothered even back in the day. I think this is partially a function of the fact that all I ever see from you guys is timed contest movies - that by their very nature are going to be lacking in terms of story. Most of the other stuff I've seen of yours recently that wasn't part of a contest always seems to have some sort of disclaimer about how it was done quickly.

STOP DOING THIS!!!! Make a proper film, with time put into it up front in the script writing phase! Please! Marrying your excellent technicals with a thought out and character driven story would make for a superb movie.

I mean it.

I actually rather like and enjoy their shorts from what I've seen so far and I also dig the undertones or messages because it shows what you guys can do and come up with in a short amount of time.

But I also agree with Evman concerning the taking your time to really throw yourselves into a good sized project. You guys have the skills and you definitely have the talent to make some absolutely amazing films.
I really want to see you guys put your asses into it because I have all the confidence in the world, in you guys. You guys are great at what you do, so go bigger and stop hiding your skills by only working on films that have time constraints. You and your work are better than that.

First off thanks everyone for the comments, we really appreciate them! I'm glad, for the most part, people have enjoyed our latest filmmaking endeavor to grace the FXHome cinema. Thanks for the kudos on the 'future-police' outfits, too. I try.

Just a little update, too- I got an email today that Exodus won the 'Audience Award' at the screenings, which is cool. We'll find out about other awards and the 'Best of City' (Which Bryan M Block's film won in Columbus last year, actually) award in a few weeks.

Evman, hey, look- I think we disagree fundamentally on a lot of aspects in filmmaking, and surely both of us going to film school has additionally soured us both from snarky, pretentious movie-styles.

But I think you mistake my urge, and I'm sure Ben's as well, for making something 'important-seeming' for our actual desire to create something with flow that is, more important than anything else- even plot- entertaining and enjoyable. That's always been it for us, and if themes and ideas come into that- hey, they just do. Messages and themes are an important aspect in filmmaking I feel like. You yourself say your favorite movies have stories that employ feelings for the characters- hey, that's great. It doesn't mean having themes and ideas in them are mutually-exclusive assets, you know?

For the record, the movies I like the best have never been directly about the characters, but the ideas behind the movies and the themes they represent. The Shawshank Redemption, for example. Like I said, we obviously disagree fundamentally here- so there's not much I can say to that effect.

This all, also of course discounting that almost all science fiction movies and series, when stripped of their special effects and high concepts, are all essentially societal tales, parables, and foils for whatever the social or political climate of the time is.

Our movie is no different- but that isn't to say we can't, don't want to, or don't also try other things. You say we use voiceover, yes, I won't debate that- but the last time I used it was nearly a year and a half ago on, well, 'Messages'. In the time since then I've done a variety of things and narrative styles- many of them I've posted here and kept people updated with (most-recently and the best example, of course, being our 24-hour movie 'No Rest For The Wicked'). I do hope you give those some views. Here with 'Exodus' we've presented somewhat of a societal tale, yes, and it's got voiceover, yes- but it has these things because and only because we felt them the best way to create an enjoyable and solid film with our given elements. (blogger, sci-fi genre, etc.)

It just worked best that way, playing to our strengths and honing our resources. We were slim on actors, for instance, and Trevor's dramatic acting was untested. Now, he overwhelmingly surprised us, yes, but instead of getting in over our heads with dialog and such with untested resources- something I feel many people do and either fail or come out rocky; something I've done on our epicfail 'Kingdom Come'- I knew a narration would be the safest and most-solid device to stick to in this movie.

It doesn't work for every movie, no. It wouldn't have worked for Pages, Heat, No Rest For The Wicked, Madison Street Boys, or our Batman film The Winged Crusade, or my most recent project 'A Love Not standing'. But it worked here, and I'm not upset about that; nor do I find it formulaic- even for us.

Look: There's only so many excuses and rebuttals I can make before I get to sounding predictable and whiny- but I just want that clarification made: Our goal isn't self-importance, rather, it is and has always been to make something other people can enjoy. If that doesn't sit well with you, or if you dislike it, that's fine.

I just think, more than ever, you're way off here with what you say. But I can't change your feelings, and I can accept that. You of all people know we do these timed things not because we get to preface our movies from them with excuses, but because they're the most fun we have- and I've said many times the 24 and 48 hour races are some of the only times I'm ever able to get together such great resources, locations, and talent. It's a great springboard for making a solid movie- even in such a short timeframe, and I'm forever grateful for the opportunity.

If that's all you've seen from us, I'm sorry. But that isn't all we've been doing- and maybe there's where a distinction needs to be made, you know?

For starters, Evan, thanks for taking the time to watch and leave such an in depth review. Though I may disagree with some of your thoughts, they're still a valuable synthesis of the film and I really, really appreciate that!

I suppose I think that while it was true that a message drove the voiceover (and, in turn, the movie) in 'Messages', it doesn't here - rather, the movie is a simple, linear story (antagonizing man on the run) with a voiceover to supplement character development (which is something people have asked of us before, so we've tried to sort it into our stuff). When you really, really think about it, the voiceover may establish a message, but that's secondary to establishing the character or his counterpart.

By extension, I think the reason the message even exists is because it's a product of the character we develop who feels resentment towards rebellion and free thought and speech. Honestly, if you disagree with me here, I would really like to know where you think the weakness is, because I really have tried to sort of amend this oppressive omniscient voice that has lingered in our stuff in the past, and I feel that the voiceover here is just another component of the story to bring us to catharsis in the end, not to just be vacuous and overly impressive.

Also, as Atom says, when you think about sci-fi, if you really want to epitomize it - which, unlike 'sports film', is something you should epitomize - you either need to accentuate space, technology, government or medical futurist stuff. Given that accentuating technology, space or medical stuff without a large budget looks cheesy, we went for government. Given that the background of politically-fueled films is based off of philosophy, it sort of just fit in there appropriately. If you see it as shoehorned in, I guess I can see where you're coming from - just don't think that was the intent. We chose dystopian film also because we thought it was something we could do well that people would enjoy, that's our main purpose in filmmaking: entertainment, sometimes with deeper meaning (for better or for worse).

Altogether, though, I'm glad you watched the film and (hopefully) enjoyed some of it. Check out 'No Rest' if you haven't already.

Well guys I'm glad you didn't take my comments the wrong way.

As for Sci-Fi being all about the messages - I can see how that's true - to some degree. But if you think about GOOD sci-fi, you'll see that it's always the characters you care about first. I don't like good sci-fi movies because they have a good warning about a current political situation. I like them because the characters were engaging and kept me engrossed in the story. Even Star Trek - notorious for this "moral fable" thing - is not great because of that. It's great because Kirk and Spock rock, and the way the stories are told is fun and inventive. Though I'd hesitate to call Star Wars "sci-fi" in the strictest sense, it still suceeds primarily because of the wonderful characters, their interactions, and the great story. Of course it's hardly an original basic story and the characters themselves are the result of thousands of years of storytelling. Nonetheless, Luke, Han, and Leia are all part of everyday vernacular for a reason. To cop out all sci-fi as simply "just moral tales and parables" is kinda cheap. More than anything else, they're good stories. The stories are what engages us, and what makes any film run. Otherwise, you can look up something on the internet and find a million different viewpoints on it without getting a worthless "narrative" to go along with it...

I was simply frustrated by the story sitting on the backburner. I was interested in the story of the guy being a criminal for speaking his mind. But let's be honest - that has been done to death in countless movies and other media before. It almost feels like you realized this and tried to comment on it, rather than take the story anywhere it hasn't been before.

That's simply not my style. And it's not the kind of movie that I enjoy.

Ben, you asked where the voiceover faltered in being completely character driven. Well I'd say mostly from the fact that we didn't know enough about this guy. From the get go, we know him as a talking voice over pictures of him looking penseive. We never see him really DOING anything. And this is another problem for me. Films are about action. Books are about words. Films with narration like this always seem like... why didn't the writer just write a book? You're wasting all the creative possibilites of having a complete world to film visually. Film is not the ideal medium for getting into someone's headspace. For one thing, it's boring, and it's also a waste of screentime. Especially when it's not really forwarding the story that much.

If the voiceover was character driven, I would have cared what happened to either of these two main characters. I didn't. That's my general litmus test. Niether character was truly set up in any sort of sympathetic way, because we never really saw them do anything that made us care about them.

The need you both have to make entertaining movies is the goal of many filmmakers - I just don't think it's entertaining to listen to someone's inner monolouge while the real story is happening just beyond their voice.

I just can't shake the feeling that there's a great movie hidden in here somewhere - but not in the way you chose to tell it. Given more time to think it through, I'd say it could have worked a lot better. At least for me.

But hey - that's me. If you guys wanna keep on doin' what you're doin', then by all means, keep on trucking. Just know that I don't think I'm the only person with this view about what makes a good movie. Do with that information what you wish! :p

I see where you're coming from, I just still have to disagree.



Dude, you're exactly right. The voiceover allows you to reference characters in more than one scenario - we see the cop chasing the blogger, watching him secretly during a taping of a rebellion video, and reading his blogs as they're written. We see their shared experiences, and it's made meaningful by through the order it's put in and the monologue that describes it. The dystopian story has been done before, and it's *relatively* simple/repetitive, so our 'take' on it was to meld our style as effectively as we could to the movie, making it entertaining in the process.

To get this kind of...scale in the film, the voiceover was necessary. You made a film called 'Vivification' which I very much enjoyed, but its sole backing was single dialog between yourself and a girl. The story was told on a more personal level, and it worked well for that movie. In establishing the sense of rebellion that we wanted, though, I don't think dialog like that would've worked.

I'm not trying to nitpick - don't think that - I just think that in this film, more than anything we've ever done, we added elements where necessary, not for the sake of adding them.

Last edited by ben3308 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:10 am; edited 1 time in total

Ben beat me to it, but:

Meh, agree to disagree. I'm not discounting all sci-fi as parables, but I think you're trying at a stretch here- there are obvious difficulties to making a sci-fi short film, in any amount of time, and I'm happy with the one we made and how we went about it. We're obviously not going to make Star Wars or something of the sort- and sometimes it feels like, perhaps even sometimes with us specifically, people like you try to pick because we aren't doing that. Would you have those expectations of others, you know? That's just what frustrations I have.

Me personally, I wouldn't do it another way. Maybe you would, but that remains to be seen. Sure there's a tried-and-true 'yeah you guys are good at technicals but the story still suffers!' line, but it's still upsetting to see it all discounted, because I never see it as story versus technicals. Neither are more important or stressed for me, it's more about storytelling, you know?

The way I go about presenting my movie, finding its flow, is what I like most about filmmaking and my own films, if it's not too prideful to say. This plays into the 'entertaining' deal.

I don't mean to argue, I just don't like you discounting the way I do things. If you'd watch our other recent movies, you'd *hopefully* see we're not a one-trick-pony; however much you might see it that way.

Last edited by Atom on Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:14 am; edited 1 time in total

Yeah, I can see what you mean - it just didn't seem to work for me. I guess it's simply not my style, and not the way I would have liked to see it go. I think the elements you added "where necessary" could have just as easily been replaced by other, more effective elements - given proper forethought and detailed plotting just not possible in 48 hours.

The 'to voiceover or not to voiceover' issue is a big one for me. I've seen films where it doesn't work and I've seen films where it really does work, but on the whole I prefer it to not be there. It's hard to say why exactly - I think if there's a way to get the voiceover information to the viewer without using voiceover, it's preferable.

It's a tricky line, though. I actually felt the voiceover in this worked much better than in some of your other films, because it seemed to be espousing both character and story/themes at the same time, unlike some of your previous work where it's been 100% story/theme. As I think Spydurhank said, the second half of the voiceover worked MUCH better than the first half. Not so much because of the acting, but because the writing got more interesting and specific.

The reason it's an issue I'm mulling over considerably is that I'm hoping to turn this short story into a short film later in the year/next year, and the style of the short obviously lends itself to having a voiceover. But I can't shake the feeling that that would be the cheap, easy way out - the obvious thing to do - and I'm therefore trying to figure out ways of getting the same detail to the viewer via other means.

Interesting stuff, no doubt.

Which is a good point, I think, Tarn. If voiceover naturally would properly convey what you're trying to say, in a tone you're trying to set, why go out of your way not to use it, you know? Cheap, but to who? The viewer? Yourself? I feel like what's been oft been considered a crutch of ours has sometimes turned into the appropriate route lately, and I've arbitrarily avoided it.

That makes things seem forced to me, and when it came to sci-fi and what we could do, I really wanted to avoid that feeling here. Hence, the voiceover. You bring up a perfect point and hesitation- we got too wary of the idea of voiceover, I think, and some of our films this past year have been worse off because of it- not that they all required or called for it, most of them didn't, but yeah- not necessary to rule out; and that's what we've realized in our recent movies, including this one, which I worked on this past weekend.

Likewise, spydurhank's assertion that the voiceover was supposed to possibly be slightly under-enthused in the first half is a correct one. We knew we wanted a revelation, but to do it in such a short timeframe we felt would just come off silly and far too forced. The voiceover was a good way to pull it in, at least I felt, because we start with very 'by-the-book', 'code'-style monotone speech, explaining the social climate and introducing the characters- but as it progresses we're meant to hear and see more humanity, to really feel the cop rethink the actions and world he's living in. He has a moment of revelation almost immediately during his aggressive speech about order, but it's softened through the voiceover and the writing- and this was purposeful.

It's meant to get more personal, more specific, more important, and more plot-progressing as far narration goes by the very end. And even better, it worked the required line of dialog in there, I felt, perfectly- at least the best we've ever worked it in. ("I never thought about it that way.)

And the second question, of course, would be do you plan to produce your script yourself- or are you looking for someone to do it?

Last edited by Atom on Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total