<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<title type="html"><![CDATA[Forums - Bricks in Motion - Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
	<link rel="self" href="http://bricksinmotion.com/forums/feed/atom/topic/21055/"/>
	<updated>2015-05-01T22:37:13Z</updated>
	<generator>PunBB</generator>
	<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/topic/21055/lets-talk-about-comedy-in-brickfilms/</id>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345844/#p345844"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[[quote=Littlebrick][quote=Mosh5256]Comedy is comedy, as long as it makes people laugh, to me it's good. I don't personally care whether it is visual or just talking.[/quote]

Yes, but I think the point of this thread is that there's too much of one sort of comedy (dialog, a lot of which isn't very well done), and that we're not utilizing the full spectrum of comedic possibilities.[/quote]

Exactly, if you aren't interested in utilizing the full range of the animation and cinematic medium you may as well just release a comedy podcast. One of the point's of Tony's video is when you need to communicate something in your film stop and ask yourself if you can do it visually, and if at all possibly you can make a joke out of it?

For example in my upcoming project I need to show that some time has passed, first choice I have is just using a title card, saying 'later that week' or something. Now that isn't very interesting, so I came up with the plan of maybe showing an exterior of the house and showing the sun rising and setting. That is more visually interesting and does tell the viewer the same information without relying on boring exposition, now is there a way I can make that transition funny? Honestly, I don't know, I am still thinking about it. But the very acting of critically thinking about that transition can only help the scene get better.

That is the kind of critical thinking that some of you will take away from this thread, it's not about defending the merits of old films, it's about looking at your unfilmed projects and thinking about how you can make them better.

[quote=Nathan Wells]As I've slowly worked on Appetite Lost, I've also been writing a follow-up to Five Years Later which I've increasingly been unhappy with. This discussion made me realize that most of my dissatisfaction came from the bland presentation I was scripting. So I've started over, separated characters, and put them in different locations. I'm already happier with the results.

So for those looking to break old habits, I'd suggest trying putting your characters in different, unfamiliar environments. Part of the problem with my original script was setting the entirety of the film in Alice and Derrick's apartment. The apartment has a place, but it shouldn't be the center of the universe. I think one of the reasons my two favorite Alex and Derrick films are Flashbacks and Five Years Later is I break up scenes of the apartment with different locations. Trying out new locations gives you a great opportunity to try new shots, compositions, and transitions. There's only so many ways I could shoot inside the apartment, and even with it's new Five Years Later look I don't think I could come up with many more interesting shots for it.[/quote]

Yeah, it's important to remember that even when you are trying to accomplishing non-comedic things that you have an entire spectrum of visual and audio tools beyond dialog and exposition, while those tools have there place building a whole film on them is like trying to build a whole house with a pneumatic nail gun.

I went through a few weeks of animation block after finishing my current set, I realized it was due to the fact of how much dialog it contained and that I was worried it would be really uninteresting, I went through the dialog and focused on adding animation to add to the comedy and worked on framing to give whoever was in control of the scene a more powerful position, just adding movement through the set creating something that was more interesting. If you are worried about boring people with uninteresting visuals just try thinking about how you can using blocking to create visual interest. For instance one character was being aggressive, and I wondered how I could show that visually, I came up with the idea of him jumping up on a table in the middle of a rant he was getting into, this adds some visual comedy which matches the dialog, while also giving him a more powerful position in the framing of the picture and adds some unexpected visual interest to the scene. I feel like that adds a ton, and it certainly the type of thing I need to work harder at.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[SlothPaladin]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/411/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-05-01T22:37:13Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345844/#p345844</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345777/#p345777"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[If it's not the crux of the video that the camera is the playground, the video wasn't effective to begin with.

--

UPDATE
I said this yesterday based on what I got out of viewing the video.   It came across as rude.  I didn't mean to.  I will recuse myself from this topic/thread.  I decided not to delete the original comment, so people will know my mistake and understand what I'm talking about here.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[HoldingOurOwn]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/125690/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-29T21:18:37Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345777/#p345777</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345765/#p345765"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[I definitely agree with the premise of this discussion: a lot of the time, brickfilm comedies boil down to a bunch of talking heads. The "two guys on a couch" trope helps cement this style, and I'm getting very bored with it. Unfortunately, I know I'm guilty of doing this as well, and it's partially why I've strayed away from comedy in my last few films (Five Years Later excepted).

As I've slowly worked on Appetite Lost, I've also been writing a follow-up to Five Years Later which I've increasingly been unhappy with. This discussion made me realize that most of my dissatisfaction came from the bland presentation I was scripting. So I've started over, separated characters, and put them in different locations. I'm already happier with the results.

So for those looking to break old habits, I'd suggest trying putting your characters in different, unfamiliar environments. Part of the problem with my original script was setting the entirety of the film in Alice and Derrick's apartment. The apartment has a place, but it shouldn't be the center of the universe. I think one of the reasons my two favorite Alex and Derrick films are Flashbacks and Five Years Later is I break up scenes of the apartment with different locations. Trying out new locations gives you a great opportunity to try new shots, compositions, and transitions. There's only so many ways I could shoot inside the apartment, and even with it's new Five Years Later look I don't think I could come up with many more interesting shots for it.

I think this is one of the reasons Walter Benson's That's the Way it Goes is successful. We visit many locations in the film and never stay at any location for too long. Each location is also important to a particular story arc. I imagine That's the Way it Goes would be a lot less interesting if it spent most of its time in the two main protagonists's house.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Nathan Wells]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/335/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-29T17:57:04Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345765/#p345765</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345763/#p345763"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[[quote=Mosh5256]Comedy is comedy, as long as it makes people laugh, to me it's good. I don't personally care whether it is visual or just talking.[/quote]

Yes, but I think the point of this thread is that there's too much of one sort of comedy (dialog, a lot of which isn't very well done), and that we're not utilizing the full spectrum of comedic possibilities. Comedic tastes differ from person to person (for example, I would disagree with your position on slapstick), so it's necessary to have a wider range of humor. Otherwise, if all comedy films were Adam Sandler movies, I'd stop watching comedy movies entirely (and to be honestly, I have largely stopped watching straight comedies because the majority of them just aren't appealing, even though I love comedy).]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Littlebrick]]></name>
				<email><![CDATA[graemecallen@yahoo.com]]></email>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/8/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-29T17:00:16Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345763/#p345763</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345762/#p345762"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[Comedy is comedy, as long as it makes people laugh, to me it's good. I don't personally care whether it is visual or just talking. However, I am not very fond of slapstick comedy, like we see in a lot of TV today. Go back in time thirty years or so and it's much funnier. But I do think slapstick can be done right when you got the right person coming up with it. Which is definitely not me.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Mosh5256]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/132414/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-29T16:32:24Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345762/#p345762</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345760/#p345760"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[I challenge you to name one single brickfilm that uses an over dramatic lighting cue for comedic effect. I feel like the 'dramatic lighting cue' is more often used for dramatic effect and often ends up feeling melodramatic,  whereas a comedy setting sort of turns the trope on its head and has fun with it.

I do agree that the crux of the essay is 'the frame is a playground, so play' and I do find it a little ironic that while we are making our film with toys we need to be reminded of that.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[SlothPaladin]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/411/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-29T16:11:59Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345760/#p345760</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345756/#p345756"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[Sloth, I did admit that I didn't see the video, because of lack of time at the time. I watched it last night, and I understand what you mean completely.

I do have a few comments on it.  The video presented some pretty good suggestions, even if under half of the provided examples were actually funny.  I would go in a little different direction, though.  I know everyone loves lists, so the video categorizes types of humorous camera work.  But his ending is really the crux of the video and the best advice: the camera is the "playground", and you should try to be inventive and novel with it.  What's more, this is not only a good rule for only comedy, but dramatic or tragic films, and prose as well.  To apply the technique in prose, you want to describe the mundane in a way it's never been explained before.  When a house catches on fire, for instance, how many times has the smoke rising been given the metaphor, "a plume"?  You can do better than that!  Or can you?  An inventive writer should learn to use language the way the director uses the lens.

The TV montage is a great joke and effective comedy most every time it's used (also one that has been used a lot over time, which is weird becaue the overused is kinda what the video is saying to avoid), but in the example shown, while funny, it's not someone missing an actual warning, because it's just a combination of related clips that create a related sentence through serendipity.  I would just as likely not say, "Oh, there's some impending doom", because of such a coincidence.

Also, two of the 8 "ideas": matching scene transitions and super dramatic cues are already extremely common in modern comedy.   This should make the creator of this video happy.  (actually super-dramatic cues are something I'd like to see LESS of.)  There's also the much funnier super-understated cue, where a character reacts mildly to something ultra-dramatic.  This can be very effective, but it was left out of the video as a "type".  Maybe the director he likes doesn't do them.

Well, that's my 2 cents worth.  That's probably what my advice is worth.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[HoldingOurOwn]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/125690/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-29T14:21:58Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345756/#p345756</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345751/#p345751"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[[quote=rioforce][quote=HoldingOurOwn]Mr. Vertigo, another good thing to do is break up your shots a lot in dialogue heavy films I've learned over time.  This helps avoid static camera shots.[/quote]

Frankly, I disagree. Breaking up shots with lots of dialogue doesn't make the film any better, it often just makes it choppy. You have to plan out your shots in advance, and choose the best possible camera angles for the dialogue. Just switching back and forth and out and in doesn't make it interesting, it just makes it tiring to look at.[/quote]

I don't mean, just break the shots up without planning.  I just meant not to keep a static camera for 45 seconds to a minute at a time if possible.  Change the camera angle when a different character talks, like in sitcoms.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[HoldingOurOwn]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/125690/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-29T13:08:26Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345751/#p345751</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345742/#p345742"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[I feel like people think I am vilifying dialog, I am not, [b]HOO[/b], please watch the video before continuing the discussion, I am saying that films lack visual comedy, you can add visual comedy to a dialog heavy film, even though [b]Squid[/b] was getting down on his own film Leprechauns in France it still uses funny visuals to agment the verbal comedy, like literally showing bald dude's mind getting blown:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/TrKP6kJ.png[/img]

or things entering the frame in funny ways:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/6gPB5FZ.png[/img]

These are funny visual elements that use the film medium to enhance the humor in the dialog and help keep the audience engaged. If visual elements are few and far between the eyes of the audience will start to wander and if you have a visual joke they might miss it because they are reading there facebook feed or something while your film is playing on the side, if they haven't given up on watching completely.

Another great example of visual comedy used to enhance dialog in a dialog heavy films would be [b]PushOverProductions[/b], you have things like the sales man in [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP4sQ2_J5V4]15 Second Party in a Crate[/url] appearing in a very funny manner, the whole film is packed with a TON of visual gags and even though it's only a 30 second short the combination of funny dialog with humorous visuals make it very memorable.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/V1a0W2G.png[/img]

This is the kinds of things brick films need more of, the way you animate dialog can be funny, however more often then not it gets turned into mechanical motions. LEGO is a very visual medium and with the magic of stop motion there is no reason we need to be confined the the constrains of reality. Right and left aren't the only place you can bring a new character in from, you can have minifigs pop out of the floor or ceiling, heads arms and legs can pop off, you could tack mixal eyes to a minifig when they get freaked out, there are a lot of LEGO pieces get creative!

I've tried to keep my tone pretty positive and only highlight examples of things done right by members but you are sort of painting a target on yourself HOO.

[b]Mr Vertigo[/b], while comparing brickfilms to big budget productions might not be 'fair' it's certainly valid, this is a thread for folks that want to improve there craft, if folks want to wallow in mediocrity there is no need for those folks to get down on the people who are willing to research and try new things and reach for higher goals. There is no reason why someone can't make a brickfilm as timeless as a Chuck Jones Loony Toon episode, but if we aren't willing to look at our own problems and shortcomings then there is no way we will ever get there.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[SlothPaladin]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/411/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-29T04:20:12Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345742/#p345742</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345740/#p345740"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[[quote=HoldingOurOwn]Comedy that is mostly dialogue-based is not always so easy to animate.  Characters walk around, carry and use props, react to each other, especially if three or more characters are involved.  I'm going to watch the film, finally, posted at the top.[/quote]

That's all really standard animation that isn't terribly visually interesting, though. Sloth's point was that this is boring to watch and doesn't take advantage of what animation, brickfilming in particular, is good at. Live action TV sitcoms work because talented comedians can really emote on screen, but when you're working with minifigs, flailing minifig arms and moving some props around just doesn't have the same power to it.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Sméagol]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/28/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-29T01:08:27Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345740/#p345740</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345728/#p345728"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[Comedy that is mostly dialogue-based is not always so easy to animate.  Characters walk around, carry and use props, react to each other, especially if three or more characters are involved.  I'm going to watch the film, finally, posted at the top.

But also, minimal humor is trendy today, but really big in the 1990s.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[HoldingOurOwn]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/125690/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-28T21:31:44Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345728/#p345728</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345707/#p345707"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[I remember seeing this video some time ago when Mr. Vertigo showed it to me.  It really made me think hard about comedy in film-making.

I do admit, I fall into that usual rut quite often.  In my last comedy film, Leprechauns in France, it is mostly just two people standing in front of each other talking about stuff, and visual humour is minimal.  I also got into the same rut again with a screenplay I wrote this year, but this time I was cognizant of this problem as I wrote it, but I went along with it anyway.

Still, I'm never sure yet as to what exactly I am to do about this.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Squid]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/3704/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-28T15:12:25Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345707/#p345707</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345702/#p345702"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[[quote=HoldingOurOwn]Mr. Vertigo, another good thing to do is break up your shots a lot in dialogue heavy films I've learned over time.  This helps avoid static camera shots.[/quote]

Frankly, I disagree. Breaking up shots with lots of dialogue doesn't make the film any better, it often just makes it choppy. You have to plan out your shots in advance, and choose the best possible camera angles for the dialogue. Just switching back and forth and out and in doesn't make it interesting, it just makes it tiring to look at.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[rioforce]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/131977/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-28T14:35:20Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345702/#p345702</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345697/#p345697"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[Mr. Vertigo, another good thing to do is break up your shots a lot in dialogue heavy films I've learned over time.  This helps avoid static camera shots.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[HoldingOurOwn]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/125690/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-28T14:05:54Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345697/#p345697</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Let's talk about comedy in brickfilms]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345694/#p345694"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[I definitely agree that it would be great to see more visual comedy and better cinematography in Brickfilming.  LEGO lends itself especially well to this sort of style, but it's still pretty rare to see it in actual Brickfilms and I'd love to see more Brickfilmers explore these possibilities.

That being said, I don't think your comparison of modern Hollywood comedies with the average Brickfilm is entirely fair.  The comedies Tony Zhou discusses are professional big-budget films, made by people who have spent years of their life studying film and working in the film-making industry.  Brickfilms are typically made by kids or teens who are still in school, unlikely to have seriously studied film (yet), and who view film-making as a casual fun side hobby.  Heck, my own interest in cinema in general was sparked by seeing Brickfilms and wanting to make some myself.  (Funnily enough it's now my experience in live-action and interest in cinema influencing my Brickfilming, so I guess I've come a full circle.)  Basically, the modern Hollywood comedies are made by people who [i]should[/i] know better, but the Brickfilms are made by people who don't yet have the skill or knowledge to do better.

Honestly, I think the main problem is a lack of awareness.  As a film-maker, you have full control over the world you create.  You can make your characters and story do whatever you want.  This is particularly true of Brickfilming, as typically you will be the writer, director, cameraman and animator, editor, set/prop designer, gaffer,  cinematographer, possibly voice actor, caterer... etc. (unlike live-action, where you essentially need an army of people to get anything done).  As Tony puts it:
[quote=Every Frame a Painting]The frame is a playground, so play![/quote]
It sounds like an incredibly simple thing (and it is), but I only really grasped that after watching Every Frame a Painting and working in live-action.  Even having a basic grasp of cinematography and shot types, and simply asking yourself why you want to frame a specific shot in a specific way will greatly improve the quality of your film.  Before I didn't even storyboard or write out proper scripts; now, I rigorously plan out every shot.

Of course, I now feel slightly bad since my current project has a ton of dialogue, and at times mainly consists of characters talking at each other.  However, I do plan on adding a good amount of visual humour (particularly in an epic fight scene I have planned), and I've taken great pains to keep the cinematography visually engaging, instead of being a standard shot/reverse-shot setup.

So to sum it all up, I think the best way to go about improving Brickfilm comedies is to encourage them to study and analyse film-making, think outside the box, and make them aware of the possibilities.  It's far too easy to get trapped in a "do what everyone else does" mindset, and films suffer for it.]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Mr Vertigo]]></name>
				<uri>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/user/127487/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2015-04-28T12:42:17Z</updated>
			<id>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/345694/#p345694</id>
		</entry>
</feed>
