Ways to Ruin a Job interview

Cake · Postby **Cake** » 18 Nov 2007, 10:27

Checkerville, X to Y doesn't generally have any speaking parts. There is only one exception.

Vicky · Postby **Vicky** » 18 Nov 2007, 11:11

I don't know about the video being too long, or the music being funky after four minutes. Maybe I'm just not perceptive, or maybe I'm focusing less on technicalities and just more on the humor? :'P

I think Matt did an awesome job playing a part that wasn't designed for him. Plus I liked his ensemble. Tres chique.

Tam23 · Postby **Tam23** » 18 Nov 2007, 18:38

Vicky wrote:I don't know about the video being too long, or the music being funky after four minutes. Maybe I'm just not perceptive, or maybe I'm focusing less on technicalities and just more on the humor? :'P

I think Matt did an awesome job playing a part that wasn't designed for him. Plus I liked his ensemble. Tres chique.

I agree with you on both counts, Vicky

I too, didn't notice the funky music, probably because of the sound of my laughter...

Graham · Postby **Graham** » 18 Nov 2007, 22:44

Hey everyone!

So, we kind of George Lucas'd the video. Even when it went up I felt it dragged a bit and I wasn't totally happy with it. You guys mostly backed that up.

I went back to fix the sound, and fix another error, and I figured while I was in there... well I completely re-edited it.
I trimmed a bunch, changed a lot of the titles for joke-pacing, and trimmed even more. It's about a minute shorter, and I was able to put another scene back in. So: Bonus!

Enjoy!

Misty · Postby **Misty** » 18 Nov 2007, 22:57

Ooooh, nice job, Graham!! I noticed a definite difference in the two (oh God... the drug test was awesome and completely gross all at the same time) I love that the 'ding's are back now

Thankfully the song continuity problem is fixed, considering that's what everyone was complaining about the most. The only thing I see now as a little off is that some of the titles zoom by a bit too quickly to fully read. It's not a huge thing, but I figured I'd mention it anyways.

Sable · Postby **Sable** » 18 Nov 2007, 23:01

Very nice!

It feels more tight, and the jokes work much better without the visual breakup of the "note cards."

Excellent...Lucas...ing...?

meisbored · Postby **meisbored** » 18 Nov 2007, 23:06

This new version does seem to flow better, and doesn't seem quite so dragged-out. Great re-jorb, Grahamstray.

Allen! · Postby **Allen!** » 18 Nov 2007, 23:08

Interesting, you don't see this very often.
A video received largely negative feedback, so the creators were like "Oh man, they're kinda right. Let's make it better, yo."
It's good to know(and well appreciated) that LRR(or rather, G-Star himself)'s 'sticking to their values' means giving their loyal, loving fans what they want.

theduckthief · Postby **theduckthief** » 18 Nov 2007, 23:16

Graham wrote:Hey everyone!

So, we kind of George Lucas'd the video. Even when it went up I felt it dragged a bit and I wasn't totally happy with it. You guys mostly backed that up.

I went back to fix the sound, and fix another error, and I figured while I was in there... well I completely re-edited it.
I trimmed a bunch, changed a lot of the titles for joke-pacing, and trimmed even more. It's about a minute shorter, and I was able to put another scene back in. So: Bonus!

Enjoy!

So much better Graham! Much tighter and you didn't lose anything by trimming those bits. And yay for the dings being back. Also, Matt was awesome in this video.

JesterJ. · Postby **JesterJ.** » 18 Nov 2007, 23:25

Sweet!

Definitely a lot better, and I liked the new part (along with not using the handsdownpants/handshake twice.)
Shorter time is a lot better.
Best of all...DINGS!

CheeseGrater · Postby **CheeseGrater** » 18 Nov 2007, 23:34

I enjoyed it, personally!

I'm always a big fan of the X ways to Y, and the Sam Raimi boosted this from awesome to doubleplusgoodawesome.

And as for Matt's performance: unequivocal fan favourite indeed. ^^ Well done!

Evil Jim · Postby **Evil Jim** » 18 Nov 2007, 23:41

Graham wrote:I trimmed a bunch, changed a lot of the titles for joke-pacing, and trimmed even more. It's about a minute shorter, and I was able to put another scene back in. So: Bonus!

Nice work! It's well rounded & better paced now. The new captions were a neat idea but the old "caption" + *ding!* formula works better for the X Ways to Y format. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, so to speak.

Lavos · Postby **Lavos** » 19 Nov 2007, 00:29

9000+X
BETTER.

Lord Chrusher · Postby **Lord Chrusher** » 19 Nov 2007, 01:36

Much better.

Cake · Postby **Cake** » 19 Nov 2007, 01:45

Much better.

I noticed you blurred out the website of the company, mostly because you brought attention to it on the left side between 2:18 and 2:19.

Ishamel · Postby **Ishamel** » 19 Nov 2007, 02:06

It's all been said before - before the new cuts, it was weak, now it's awesome. I think more than anything else the 'persistent level of funnyness' is now maintained throughout, which is great. Who would have thought a tiny ding could make so much difference?
My favourite? 'Handshake: too urban' - despite the fact that the employer also knows how to do that handshake, witnessed by the fact that neither of them breaks any fingers.

Lord Chrusher · Postby **Lord Chrusher** » 19 Nov 2007, 02:11

Does the clipboard that Nathan has have the script on it?

Graham · Postby **Graham** » 19 Nov 2007, 02:14

Lord Chrusher wrote:Does the clipboard that Nathan has have the script on it?

Yes. It's been a while, huh?

browncoat · Postby **browncoat** » 19 Nov 2007, 03:42

Well, it's more stringent now, but I liked how, in the old version, we knew what the topic was before we saw how Matt ruined it ^^
All in all, I think both versions are fine, though of course, the new one doesn't have the music glitch, which is good *g*

Albu · Postby **Albu** » 19 Nov 2007, 03:50

I must say, I liked both versions. I didn't find the first one too long (also didn't notice the music glitch), but the new one just shows what post-production can do to improve viewing experience. Nice!

Also great job, Matt!

theduckthief wrote:Much tighter and you didn't lose anything by trimming those bits.

Well, I miss the table drumming bit for "too eager".

The Pious Flea · Postby **The Pious Flea** » 19 Nov 2007, 06:50

The new edit is an improvement in my opinion, with only one exception: the scenes with Matt at his previous positions were funnier with the cuts between the notepaper and the scene. It made it possible to build up an expectation, then violate it, which is funny.

Having the fanciful description of the positions pasted on top of the images seriously dilutes the humor.

Otherwise, excellent.

Kara · Postby **Kara** » 19 Nov 2007, 10:20

Well...

It was good. But definitely not your best. I saw both versions, and the second is an improvement, but it just didn't click with me and got a bit boring and predictable after a bit. Though some of the gags were really good.

Vicky · Postby **Vicky** » 19 Nov 2007, 10:56

Drug test = perfect.

It's insane to be how effective editing can have on the presentation of a video. I laughed probably the same during the second version, but at different times and intensities. Good show, good show I say.

CyberTractor · Postby **CyberTractor** » 19 Nov 2007, 11:29

Well done.

The re-edited video is much more fluid, in my opinion.

Kneuronak · Postby **Kneuronak** » 19 Nov 2007, 13:33

Graham wrote:
Lord Chrusher wrote:Does the clipboard that Nathan has have the script on it?

Yes. It's been a while, huh?

What could he possibly have needed the script for?

BTW Reedit ftw.

Ways to Ruin a Job interview

Who is online