That being said, I've come to realize that in order for the film to succeed it needs to be really attractive visually. I've noticed that there are films that LOOK really cool and because they're so interesting to look at you watch the whole thing. And then when the film is over you say "Wow. That was really cool. And really pointless." Kind of like living wallpaper, right?
And there are also films that have really great stories and could be really memorable, except that they looked so bad that you couldn't take them seriously and you gave up after the first however many minutes/seconds/whatever. I'm not saying that The Grove is one of those films, but I can say that it has the potential to be if I don't step it up visually. The problem is that the whole first half is extrememly dependant on plants and pay-offs, that is, a whole bunch of seemingly random things happen and you don't learn what they are until later on and then you say "Oh, THAT'S what that was. I get it!" I love when that happens in movies and it makes me really excited that this film has the potential to do that too. But the only way to keep the audience invested with all this random nonsense going on is by making the things that they're watching look REALLY good. I really want people to say "I have no idea what's going on but it doesn't bother me yet." The "yet" is the key because I don't necessarily want to attract an audience that is into watching wallpaper. Maybe I should say that I want people to think "I hope this is going somwhere because I'm enjoying watching it but I don't want to be disappointed by it when it's over."
So, I know what you're saying now. You're saying "But Jacob, a bad story will always be a bad story, no matter how cool it looks, and you can't hide your story flaws behind flashy visuals." I couldn't agree more. BUT you can't deny the power of a hook. After all, "The hooooook brings you baaaaaaaaaaaaack" (Blues Traveler, people. Come on.) And in general the hook should be your story. But since my story is so slow to get going, I need another hook to get people to the story. What do you call those things that attract the fish? The little rubber things that flop around in the water and the fish think it's food and they bite it and get the hook along with it and then get pulled out of the water and get their skin peeled back and their heads chopped off? Tackle? No, a lure? I'm not a fisher, obviously. Anyway, I need that. Really, I feel like I need that in all my art, but that's another seemingly endless rant. SHEESH. Anyway...
All that nonsense is to say that last night as I was falling asleep I had an image flash into my mind of Grovers that looked better than any I had come up with in all my color tests and the thing that was different was that they didn't look like Fruit Loops. They had more of an edge. And I think if I could base the overall palette of The Grove more on these sort of colors it would have more of the appeal that I'm looking for.
Bla bla bla, bla BLA bla bla.
So here it is. The top row is the set that I had decided on before, the middle row is the set from my dream, and the bottom row is that same set but with the contrast narrowed down just a bit to bring them closer together.
1 comment:
I SOO agree. And I always get my best ideas when I'm about to fall asleep. So much so that I have to grab my cell phone and write a text to no one so that in the morning I have my note written down.
And I also agree that good visuals would be a good BAIT. And I think the colors from your dream are awesome. I got the fruity loops thing from your colors before, but I liked the colors so much I didn't care. These colors are more "indie." Is that a bad word to use? Now that indie is so hip? But you are hip. You just may or may not want to be connected to that kind of hip crowed. It may not even be indie. The colors are just different enough that they don't scream main-stream. Which is a good thing.
Also, my word verification is "jikensy." I thought that was funny.
Post a Comment