December 4, 2013

The 5 most expensive words in the world: "We'll fix it in post"

Commenter Power Child notes:
"We'll fix it in post" are known to production guys as the five most expensive words in filmmaking.

"We'll fix it in post" is also the reasoning behind an awful lot of government spending on education, welfare, medicine, prisons, and many other Gaps caused by lack of care upfront in the production of residents of America.

8 comments:

d..... said...

Relevant to a previous (and future?) topic....

http://tinyurl.com/px2cy75

"Many African American/Caribbean residents expressed a genuine concern that as the Jewish community continues to grow, they would be pushed out by their Jewish landlords or by Jewish families looking to purchase homes," Cumbo wrote in the 1,200-word letter, which was emailed to supporters and posted on her Facebook page.

"I respect and appreciate the Jewish community’s family values and unity that has led to strong political, economic and cultural gains. While I personally regard this level of tenacity, I also recognize that for others, the accomplishments of the Jewish community triggers feelings of resentment, and a sense that Jewish success is not also their success."

Good luck, Mayor De Blasio!

jody said...

fast & furious producers now contemplating how to do the most difficult 'fix it in post' maneuver of them all: how to fix it in post when one of the main actors is dead!

150 million dollar budget movie blown up in mid-production.

Lex said...

In Poland it would be considered 6 words. I think.

Shouting Thomas said...

Well, yeah.

Present reality cannot yet be engineered to the desired result, as it seemingly can be in film.

What seems like the present in film is a pretense of the present manufactured in the past. When you can manufacture the present in the past, you can get things perfect.

This produces a lot of confusion in the thinking of idealists.

Socially Extinct said...

Of course, editors, colorists, graphic artists, etc, are all infinitesimally cheaper than paying a production crew and cast to re-shoot every single shot to get rid of blemishes and inadvertent visible body parts.

I think there is a corollary to this in your analogy, as well.

Power Child said...

@Socially Extinct:

Depends. If it simply means resetting and doing another take, even with lots of extras, light gags, and special effects, fixing it in post often is still the more expensive option. If it means actual reshoots weeks or months after the fact, then maybe not.

Of course, here I'm only addressing the literal scenario of filmmaking (which I know more about), not the analogous scenario of designing and implementing policy (which I know less about).

pat said...

Ridley Scott's 'Gladiator' had a minor version of the 'Fast and Furious' problem. Oliver Reed who was playing a small role suddenly died but he was still needed for a short scene. They fabricated a digital mesh and 'painted' it with his face. I think that was the most expensive couple minutes in film history at the time.

Today it would be much easier and cheaper. But we're not quite at the point where we can add a whole character photographed in bright light into a feature film. That's a couple years off yet.

I just filmed (videoed?) my latest talking head video yesterday. It's on the Tuskegee Airmen. It will be controversial but it will also be a little fuzzy. I didn't get the lights quite right. I suppose I should reshoot all of it, but contrary to your advice, I'm going to 'fix it in post'.

Albertosaurus

David said...

Post is time-consuming. Editing a decent feature takes months. Some prod people think editing a well-shot film involves only "cutting the slates off." These people are ignorant. Classic Hollywood editor/director Robert Wise, normally dapper in affect, bristled when asked by a journalist if Citizen Kane "fell together pretty well in the editing." (Wise was the editor.) "No film really falls together," Wise answered, squirming a little in exasperation. (He had been in the business 40 years at that point....)