KNIGHTQUEST

EDIT: Faces won't work. hmmm...well, the grin anyway...

(You have to put a space in there first, then your markup code )

 

HAPPY NINJA'S REVIEW OF KNIGHTQUEST.

First of all, before I get into my review, I just want to say that I haven?t read all through the previous reviews/comments, as I wanted to write this thing relatively fresh, so if I have said something that others may have commented on, you will have to forgive me. At times it may sound like I am complaining, or whining about something; please don?t think that, because I for one enjoyed this project a lot, and most of the comments that I may have written down are sometimes written from a point of view if I had been making the film, or whatever. Above all, I have tried to make my comments as honest and as up front as I can, which hopefully Joe as a fellow filmmaker can appreciate, and understand, and when my film comes out, I would expect you, the public, to do no less with me.

Enjoy the review (sorry it's so long!)...

----------------

Well, what can one say about this film? A some-odd three years in production of what is so far probably the longest film released by TFN, Knightquest is was worth waiting for. Putting it quite simply, this film is a good starting point for a first time director, who tried to do something quite original in a time where fresh ideas are waning. That said, the project is by no means perfect.

I liken this film to The Phantom Menace in many respects. First of all, after by reading several of the other reviews and comments, one thing is clear, while the majority of the public like the film (myself included), there are the occasional one or two that don't like it very much, if at all. This is a shame because of the effort brought in to create a quality production. The main thing that I feel compares to The Phantom Menace the most is the special effects, story, and dialogue. The special effects quite simply put, are a work of genius - ladies and gentlemen, this is no Sunday CGI project, this is the real McCoy (Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a filmmaker!). The story itself is quite solid, but could have done with some reworking prior to filming, as I feel that something is missing - just like how I felt with The Phantom Menace. The dialogue, on the other hand, needed quite a bit of work, and is the key factor in which stops making this film from being a very good project to something perfect.

Cutting a long story short, if the story and dialogue were refined more to coexist with breathtaking visuals, this would have been a wonderful first film from a fresh director.

Okay, lets get down to brass tacks, gentlemen...

The STORY, CHARACTERS, and ACTING.
As I said before, it is a solid story, but I felt that something was missing. As I sit and watch the film, I can't help but feel that Tara should have more presence in the film, as what is a great character is underused in the third story arc, sometimes making me feel like she is a fifth wheel. That said, she is not without purpose, and goes from point A, to point B, to point C, without too much trouble. I should point out that when I say underused, I should really say that I think that she could have done with one, or even two more scenes; that would have given her the right amount of screen time. Also, while she is on screen, she doesn?t actually say a lot. She needed more dialogue. Okay, that may or may not be the case. Non American filmmakers such as the British, and Australians tend to express their story through the use of dialogue, where as Americans tend to use action and motion as a way to carry a story forward, so that could just be my perspective from a non-Americans point of view, one that an American might not be aware of - chances are, when you see my film, you'll probably comment on how much dialogue there is.

Michelle O'Keefe does a reasonable job as Tara in the film, but sometimes her acting seems to be a little um... (I'm trying to use a non offending word - I don?t want to say fake, because her acting is far from it), but at times it does sound a little unconvincing. Personally, I think it could be either down to one of

 

Happy Ninja: Thanks for the review, it is good to hear that you talk to Joe directly, because there is a lot more behind his movie than most realize. Perhaps the documentary will address and share some of that.

As for your questions to me, first off, again Thanks for th great compliments. Most don't realize this short had around 200 effects shots not including sabers. I agree with you about the Karina turning around to Vader shot. I have found some new tricks which would greatly improve it and I may fix that for the final product. The terrain was produced in Lightwave using a combination of techniques, mainly using still photography on models. The clouds were my own design using models in Lightwave. My computer was too slow to handle volumetric type plugins so I needed to improvise. The shot outside the houndstooth that pans down to the gun was also one of my favorite shots, it really put the charaters in the space battle (in my opinion).

Since I also played Vader, I have some insight on your points about the saber fighting. If memory serves correct, the only times I used one hand were when it was physically needed. The chest plate, shoulder pads,and helmet made some moves impossible to do with both hands. In addition, both hands made it slower to swing and tended to put me off balance.

Hope this answered a few of your questions, let me know if you have more.

 

Final product?

 

heheh

Quick note of trivia...five of the saber shots (very short) are not mine, but from the original batch...

Also in answer to Ninja's observation about the glow (and width) on some of the sabers: It's kind of like the sabers in TPM. If you go through and look at a lot of the saber shots you'll see some in which the white core of the blade has a very crisp edge, and the glow seems much like a separate layer. Then in other shots the white core has a softer edge, blending more into the glow making for a better and more realistic look.

With TPM, it was because they had a team of more than one person doing the saber effects. In this case, it was because the first half of the saber shots were begun about a year and a half ago, when I had first started doing this type of thing. Whereas the last batch of shots were completed mere weeks before the release. So while it wasn't something that was conscious, my style of doing the sabers changed a bit throughout...

 

We saw the movie this weekend and Loved it! A very impressive film. My best compliment is one I haven't seen posted (or maybe I missed it) is I truly had an emotional connection to the characters-hard to do in any film but even harder in a short film. Well done guys!

Mary Ann
Producer
Emergence of the Sith

 

Anyone Know where I can e-mail Joe?

Mary Ann

 

Just PM him. His forum name is Banshee.

 

Please don't e-mail all day though.....















........He might be working on Knight Quest 2

 

I really enjoyed KQ, it felt like a movie versus an excuse to have lightsabres. The acting overall was good, Karina was great and hope to see her in other projects. The FX were great and were balanced with the story instead of overbearing like it caould have easli ben with the talent that was displayed. The only drawbacks IMO was the music was not always flowing with the story, the music/sound fx would override the voice acting. These are minor issues because the main thing is always the story and holds well up IMO.

 

Yeah, I do agree that the music was a little off beat in some scenes.

 

Tom & Clay, thanks for your comments, they helped me quite a bit.

Tom, yeah, I sometimes think it's always better to get in contact with the director directly as opposed to a regular thread reply, simply because it makes the conversation more personal, plus you have the attention of who you're trying to address, so your question doesn't get lost in the mess of a 250+ thread. (You could probably expect me to fire the odd question your way from time to time... )

Plus, I also feel that I have learnt a lot by watching this film; photographically, technically, what works and what doesn't, so to talk you guys one-to-one (no telephone joke please, Nick!) helps me in the development of my own project, and also gives me the scope to maybe learn from other peoples mistakes, recieveing their advice, taking heed of it - really anything that makes my project go as smooth as possible.

When I write a review, such as this, I try to do it for both parties - the filmmaker, and myself as both an audience, and fellow filmmmaker. Reason being, I like to be able to discuss what may or may not have worked, tell that to the filmmaker, maybe get he/she thinking about it a little more, maybe someone else picks up on it, and thinks "Ahhhh... I never thought of that before...".

I think that is where some filmmakers get it worng in making a film. Some tend to think that a film is theirs, and it belongs to them, and the audience really doesn't count. They think "If they like it, then great, if they don't well, boo hoo!", but I feel that making a film isn't just making it for yourself, but making it for others. You have to get the audience talking about it AFTER they leave the theatre; leave them wanting more...

That is filmmaking...

 

Yeah, that's right, baby. I'm bringing this thread back from the dead! Bet you never thought that you'd see this again?!?

Joe, I have a question for you; what film stock did you use (ASA?), and how many rolls did you shoot on? I'm assuming they were 400' rolls?

And if you don't mind me asking, how much did you get a 400' roll of S16? I checked with FujiFilm here in the UK, and all up, it comes to £110(inc VAT) per 400' roll ($US155). I was wondering if LA filmmakers get a better deal...

 

"You have to get the audience talking about it AFTER they leave the theatre; leave them wanting more..."

That is SOOOOO true!

Pete

 

Happy Ninja:

I'll have to check my notes on which film stock we used. I know it was Kodak and it was 400' roles.

As for the price, it was $120 dollars per 400' roll.

 

Hi banshee,
Any news on a Hi-res quicktime version?
Thanks

James

Edit: Spelling.

 

if you buy them off a film student (left over cans they had, not short ends) then they run about $95... you can get short ends even cheeper...

I just finished being AC on a shoot that used 500 speed, it wouldn't shock me if that's what you used (or 200)...

btw what kinda camera did you use? who loaded it?
Im starting to get job offers as a loader on some projects (one paied! yay!) and I'd like to hear of any probs you had w/ loading, eg unspooling... light leaks on the mag...

I've only worked with arri S's and arri SB's...

 

I'm glad to see this thread has been resurrected.

I had a couple questions to ask now that the film has had time to dwindle into the shadows. First, have any of your opinions of KQ changed since watching it a couple times ( or recently viewing it again). Did anything have more or less of an impact on you. Secondly, I'm in the process of creating a split screen of KQ including the original footage and final footage (similar to Duality), which would be used for a demo reel. Would TFN members (you) be interested if this was available for download?

Thanks for any input.

 

Yes, TILT, I'd be very interested in that. It sounds like a good idea.

 

Does anyone have Knightquest in MPEG format? So I can make a VCD...

 

Yes, I would be interested in seeing a split-screen version (or parts of it). It is interesting to see the two versions side by side, just so us (the audience) can actually figure out what was actually done.

Has the film changed for me? No, not really. I watched it the other day - which prompted me to resurrect the thread - and basically what I said before in my review, still stands.

I think the best time to ask this question would be on the 1st Anniversary of it's release.

What I would like to know, not just from Joe, but from the other makers of Knightquest, have you recieved any job offers, or any positive reaction from those already in the industry?

Joe, do you feel that you obtained what you set out to accomplish?

 

H Ninja, good idea about only posting select areas of the movie and trimming the fat. Breaking it down would make it much easier to download.

Noone has contacted me for work, granted, I have not been persuing it. My wife has banned me from the computer since KQ was completed. When my probation is up in a month, I plan to do some projects of my own.

 

JamesJin: Azeem is working on the QT version. He has been very busy lately but he is working on it.

Happy Ninja: I don't know what ASA we used because all of my paperwork is off in storage. We shot about 5000 feet.

Zayn: The first AC actually loaded the mags on the shoot. We didn't have any problems at all with the camera other than we scratched a lens getting to close to a tree.

 

I've watched KW a few more times recently (I put it on a VHS), and it's only gotten better.

I'm still amazed with the shots of Tara's ship as it's fleeing the TIEs and trying to get off the planet. Amazing.

 

Add my name to the list of interested parties for seeing a break down (build up) of how the scenes were shot.

Like HappyN was saying, this would be most interesting for select scenes. Maybe where you see several troopers even though you only had a single armored trooper, the sky re-constructions, etc.

Maybe you could do something like the EPI DVD did for the deleted scenes. Talking to people involved in a couple of scenes, showing how it was assembled, etc. rather than a simple split screen view.

Just a thought.

Have fun!