Jump to content

TV v Movies


Guest Mick

Recommended Posts

I'm going to catch some flak for this but it might raise some interest so here goes....

A mixer with an extensive resume of TV shows and run and gun documentaries goes to interview for a movie.

Quote:"You have a lot of TV experience, but what movies have you done?"

Answer: "You realize that TV is usually much more difficult than movies, we do typically between thirty and forty setups a

day with multiple speaking parts all on wireless and don't have a large looping budget so a huge percentage of production dialogue is not only necessary but mandatory?"

Quote: "But what movies have you done?

Answer: "You know that my personal best is sixty seven setups in a sixteen hour day with only one line of looped dialogue because of a train that went by obliterating the barking dog and the noise from LAX?"

Quote: "But we need someone that has movie experience"

Answer: "I've done several commercials that needed a hundred and forty seven comteks for producers, clients and their closest friends and relatives, I've sent clean sound to video assist, satellite feeds, amateur videographers, background people and their closest friends and relatives and still managed to keep the dialogue clean, in sync and intelligible.

Quote: "Did you see Terminator 2?"

Just poking fun guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answer: "You realize that TV is usually much more difficult than movies, we do typically between thirty and forty setups a day with multiple speaking parts all on wireless  <snip>

The  other factor, our pathetic union representation, has crews working much harder, many longer hours, and for less money generally than those doing feature work. I have lost a few jobs in the past because a producer was looking for someone who he felt had a lot of experience doing exactly the kind of movie he was doing. My resume was extensive but not heavily weighted towards action movies, so they went with the person they had used many times before (and had done only action movies). I did ask if they had been pleased with the sound in the past and they admitted that no, they had not been so pleased but the person they hired seemed to be okay for an "action" movie.

There is some validity to the argument that feature movies require some forms of experience that exclusive TV work may not provide, so looking for someone with "feature" experience is not totally off the mark. Conversely, the few times that I have been asked to do TV work I have freely admitted that I am probably not the right person for the job --- they should go with someone who has had a lot more TV experience.

Regards, Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have lost a few jobs in the past because a producer was looking for someone who he felt had a lot of experience doing exactly the kind of movie he was doing. My resume was extensive but not heavily weighted towards action movies, so they went with the person they had used many times before (and had done only action movies). I did ask if they had been pleased with the sound in the past and they admitted that no, they had not been so pleased but the person they hired seemed to be okay for an "action" movie.

Should really be surprised to hear that but I am surprised to hear that a large production would go with someone they weren't really happy with - I'm probably being naive, but I always thought there were so many great sound mixers out there that it wouldn't pay to be a mediocre one, especially one production wasn't happy with.

In a similar vein, I read an interview with Lazlo Kovaks who had a funny story about how he did a bunch of interior / studio pictures after "Easy Rider" and when he came up for a job featuring largely exterior location work the producers wanted to know if he could do that kind of picture!

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is some validity to the argument that feature movies require some forms of experience that exclusive TV work may not provide, so looking for someone with "feature" experience is not totally off the mark"

Could you elaborate on that Jeff?

Thanks

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what I was trying to say relates to the drastic way in which Television production is changing over the last 10 years. My statements about feature film experience or television experience really only apply to today's world. In the past, the differences between the 2 types of productions were not so great, particularly when talking about technical considerations, equipment being used and techniques employed. The differences could more easily be identified as shorter schedules, faster pace, higher "page count", longer hours and often lower pay. All of these conditions, present in TV work, have created the need for a new type of crew person. So, as we have all pointed out several times before, when a sound team, whether they be a young group or seasoned veterans, must employ wireless on everyone, no perspective recording, little concern for how angles might cut together classicly, etc., you have a sound team that may carry that approach over to a feature film even when given the opportunity to do things differently. Now, if we are saying that ALL of moviemaking is going the way of TV (and just get used to that idea) then hiring an experienced TV sound crew for a feature film is probably a good idea from a Producer's point of view. I would like to think that all those factors we can all agree on are so prevelant in the TV world, the long hours, excessive setups, multiple cameras, wire everybody, will not become THE standard for all productions. So I guess I am saying that if feature films are to be done by sound people whose main experiences, possibly their only experiences, have been in the TV world, I am afraid that they may end up being a factor in the decline of many of the things that I now appreciate in feature film making. This is not their fault, nor am I saying that I do not agree with your point about TV crews being more capable (because TV work is much, much more difficult), it is just how it all fits into the overall picture of the work we do.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Mick, thats quite a dialog scene you wrote, you should try writting a script. Oh yea, everybody has written a script in H-wood. I would like to believe someone with your resume could get a film, tv show, or a comercial in L.A., but there is a perception problem in town that looks down on TV and really looks down on comercials, and shows zero respect for eng work. I feel, like many others in town, that I can do all of the above. I don't do eng, (to old), I do comercials( good time 2 $ ratio), No TV 4 me,(way to hard), and as for films, (which I know how to do well),  it is much like the scene Mick scripted so well. Keep writing Mick, you may recieve residuals someday, and who knows, they may even hire you to mix the film you write. Naw, no film credits.

Old School

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In defense, but not defensively, of the skill and artistic requirements of TV mixing, while I admit that there are probably more wide/tight shots necessitating wires for close-ups, longer hours into which more work is tightly packed and more often than not worse food and crafts service than on movies, the job itself is exactly the same as that on a movie regardless of budget. Close-ups are addressed with quality mics both indoors and out. Quality lavaliers are used to capture broadcast quality dialogue both indoors and out. In fact I would venture to say that the percentage of production dialogue on a TV series is probably way higher than that of a motion picture that can afford to replace dialogue for a variety of less significant reasons than you'll find on a TV series. I don't have a movie resume that reads like someone like Jeff's or Art Rochester's, Cantamessa et al, but I have done some mid budget pics that allow me to make somewhat of a comparison. I guess my point is that we all know that the job is relatively the same it's just the peripheral benefits that differ and I wish more producers would see that the door which allows movie guys to mix TV shows should swing both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having trouble expressing myself on this topic, maybe because I don't have the energy to type (I don't like this form of communication anyway), I am tired, it is midnight in Paris and I can't get to sleep --- too much espresso. Here are some comments, point by point, Mick's last post:

"...while I admit that there are probably more wide/tight shots necessitating wires for close-ups...the job itself is exactly the same as that on a movie regardless of budget"

I disagree, particularly if you consider ALL aspects of "the job" when talking about recording production sound. If you are working on a feature film which is being made in much the same manner as movies always used to be made, one camera, first setup a wide master, then move in with that same camera for conventional coverage, this will never necessitate using "wires for close-ups", and the overall sound of the scene once cut together is going to sound better.

"Close-ups are addressed with quality mics both indoors and out."  How can that be if you are on a TV show shooting 2 cameras, wide and tight? I personally don't buy the  "Quality lavaliers are used to capture broadcast quality dialogue" as that statement alone makes my point exactly: "broadcast quality" is just that --- it is "airable" and acceptable for broadcast --- but is it good? 

"In fact I would venture to say that the percentage of production dialogue on a TV series is probably way higher than that of a motion picture that can afford to replace dialogue for a variety of less significant reasons..."  I don't buy this one either. There are tons of TV shows AND feature films that should have had a lot more ADR. Just because they didn't replace the dialog doesn't mean it was any good. 

"I guess my point is that we all know that the job is relatively the same it's just the peripheral benefits that differ and I wish more producers would see that the door which allows movie guys to mix TV shows should swing both ways."

Well, I still disagree that the job is relatively the same --- it may become the same (hopefully I will be retired) but at this point there is very little in common with what we can do with the production soundtrack on a good feature film set with an experienced feature film director, camera person, actors and so forth, compared to the typical TV shoot. This is at the basic root of the bias from feature directors and producers to hiring TV people.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, to me "broadcast quality" and "good" are synonymous. We use the same tools of the trade, Sennheisser, Neumann (my choice), Schoeps, (yours I believe) and Snaken and Sonotrim, Countryman lavs, Audio Limited, Zaxcom, Lectrosonics Etc etc. yadda yadda....If a wide and tight shot are the first of many pairs of shots making up the coverage of the scene, I can and do make my wires sound close enough to an overhead mic that when we go in for singles and I can use a Neumann, the sound is compatible, and by that I mean indistinguishable from the wide shot. I brag not pray understand, but whatever positive aspects that still attach themselves to my reputation do so predicated on this very ability. I take pride in the ability to capture usable, good broadcast quality dialogue in noisy situations. This is good sound. Pristine? Probably not, but the criteria for "good"sound in both movies and TV is the ability to capture an audible performance by an actor and compromise between quality sound and intelligible dialogue. Hefty use of eq may make dialogue sound less than "good" but if it renders a great performance "loop" free, then to me that's "good" sound. Balance in all things I guess. I still think that we do the same job with minor differences, but i respect the fact that you see it differently.

Dorme bien mon ami. Bonne chance avec ton projet a Paris.

Salut

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First let me say that I have the utmost of respect for those toiling in television, this is a very difficult medium to be a sound person who's interested in "quality." 

heh, and do i have a story from out here about this? of course i do. but it's 2 am out here, i will write back soon.

Monsieur Vin est dormi.

A domani.... Ciao... heh!

-vin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use in television of telephoto lenses and multiple cameras, and inexperienced cameramen is forcing sound crews to work in this "gray" area. 

On a feature they speak of wanting "good" sound, and are often willing to wait for the errant airplane or do another take because of a motorcycle drive by.  In television they ask, "could you hear what they were saying?"

When you are using your radios and mixing in the boom mic in the "wider" shots and then going to your "Neumann" in the close ups, this causes mis matches that degrade your "quality."

While we both may be recording on Devas, mixing with Cooper boards, employing Neumann and Sanken microphones.  There are distinct differences between working in features and in television.

Ok Let me address these points with which I disagree.

Granted, in TV we don't wait endlessly for planes and trains, barking dogs and weed whackers to desist before we continue. The time constraints do have an impact on production's tolerance of hold-ups due to sound issues, but they also exist on features to some extent. However, that being said, they are also cognizant of the need for the actors to feel that the effort they put in on location is not being ignored for the sake of expediency. In my experience of TV in the last fifteen years I have been the beneficiary of much appreciated consideration from the crew with regard to capturing good on-the-spot dialogue. Multiple takes have been shot in order to record a clean soundtrack and very often I didn't even have to request them, the director or AD's will instincively repeat the scene in order for me to do my job.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inexperienced cameramen" but with perhaps one exeption I have never worked with any camera crew that was not 100% professional and efficient. The camera crew on my present show is comprised of some of the best I've ever worked with and the 1st assistant is a feature -heavy dynamo with an enviable resume. Please don't denigrate their abilities because they work in TV. The camera crew is part of why we are able to achieve what we do. Their co-operation is essential to our success. This is part of my whole point.

My respect for Jeff and his work is abundant but I can say without any qualms whatsoever that he and I could interchange jobs anytime without a single problem because in my opinion there are no significant differences between the job requirements for TV and features. I might have to buy a few more comteks and wirelesses, but so what?

The degradation in quality that you refer to when transitioning from wires to booms is a non issue. I was offered another major series when I was into season two of CSI which I declined because it was a Warner Bros show (no equipment rental, but that's another story) The reason I bring this up is because the producers wanted me because of the ability I developed to make wires sound close enough to booms to make the cut from wide to tight sound seamless.  I had worked with them before and they knew that with huge and regular steadicam walk and talks this would be invaluable to them. This, along with many other examples of tradecraft is, to me, the distinction between a mixer and a recordist. Anyone can record close up talking heads, but smoothing the audio so that it both sounds like it looks and doesn't disrupt the viewer even if the visual editing style is fast cuts a la MTV, that's the craft of sound mixing. At least, part of it.

I am an advocate of "good" sound, "clean" sound and intelligible dialogue. I don't compromise on my equipment, I use the best I can find within the parameters of my own preferences. If sound for TV was less demanding than that for features I'd sell my stuff and buy cheaper, save the money and "phone it in" NOT!

I'm sure there are arguments for and against as exemplified herein, but I've yet to hear anyone present a convincing point of view that demonstrates that the art of mixing for TV and features is significantly different. I love what I do and eased into sound from being a rock and roll musician turned producer/engineer turned production mixer. I'm not as experienced as some but I know a thing or two. I'm not even sure what the point of this discussion is, if it has one, but when all's said and done if you watch "CSI" on an HDTV with surround sound then all the little differences talked about here would exemplify themselves to my detriment, but they don't. That's the point I think. Listened to in its most pristine environment with no small speaker to mask imperfections and no other TV tuned to different stations to disrupt concentration, my work sounds like a feature. That's my point. The TV bar is being raised to an all time high and we have risen to the occasion.

Our community is unique and one that I'm proud to be part of. There are issues on which we all have various points of view but not to the extent that it becomes devisive. As long as the right percentages of quality and efficiency are applied to it, I see us all doing the same job with, hopefully, the same craftsmanship.

Regards

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard, there are certain things that I disagree with, but I too am not here to give offense, just interested in a little lively discussion. I guess ping ponging opinions back and forth will just become annoying to other participants so let's agree to differ and state unequivocally that i have great respect for the job and its proponents and wish no ill will to anyone. The written word without the underlying voice activated sentiment can often mislead and without going into laborious explanation let's leave it there and let others pick this up if they so desire.

Regards

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all.... I must say that I really enjoy this thread, as we split the finest of hairs, trying to define good sound as it pertains to TV and Films and how that relates to getting hired. I think the 2 basic POV's are both right and wrong. I know that in its raw form, Production tracks in dailies, you could hear the difference between radios and booms mixed and boom only with one camera coverage. As to how the tracks sound in the final mix, I doubt that any of us could hear the difference between the two due to the fx, music, etc...  I've seen Jeff and Rich's movies on TV and they sound fine. I'm sure CSI would sound fine as well on the big screen, hell ive even heard some comercials I've worked on on the big screen and it sounded OK as well. They all have things in common, well recorded dialog trks combined(mixed) with snd fx, and music that work hand in hand with the picture. This is the job, and how you do it depends on a boatload of factors, two cams, bad locations, etc.... but it is the end result that counts.

Old School

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is indeed an interesting thread. Another difference I experience (here in the UK anyway) is that a well equipped cinema always sounds better than my limited home theatre. I dare say that not many folk's TVs do even broadcast quality soundtracks much justice. For me, going to the cinema is about an experience (soundtrack included), TV is about channel hopping looking for something worth watching, no matter what it sounds like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those "STAR WARS" Oscars, awarded to films with very little production dialog in them, were really given for those film's very innovative sound design.  The truth is that when most people think about the sound Oscars, they aren't thinking about dialog at all, they are thinking about monsters and spaceships and exploding planets.

I mostly work in TV.  However I've just come off weeks of working on the mix of a feature/theatrical show (as the sound editor) on one of the best dub stages in the world (w/ world class mixers) and have to say that production dialog, sound editing, SFX etc that I know for a fact would be perfectly fine in a TV show will not fly in a theatrical playback environment.  The standard IS higher, the playback levels louder, and better and newer theatres resolve a greater level of detail than most TV playback situations.  Compare the post schedule of even a high-end TV episodic ("Desperate Housewives" etc) to an indie theatrical feature (let alone something big-budget).  The producers of the feature aren't stupid (usually), if they could get away with working as fast as the TV series does they would.  They can't.  The theatrical movie has to sound better--more finished.  They could make "Desperate Housewives" sound that way too, if they put the time and care into the post, and gave the production mixer (my friend Ag Andrianos, a crackerjack mixer by the way) more time to "get" the scenes on location.    The way TV shows are budgeted we have to work faster and often be content w/ a lesser degree of perfection in our work.  This seems to be the way the business works.  Many years ago, when I was a kid in LA, there was an expression that said "The movie people have all the respect and the TV people have all the money."  Maybe it's still true, partly for these reasons.

Philip Perkins CAS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way TV shows are budgeted we have to work faster and often be content w/ a lesser degree of perfection in our work. 

This reminds me of my last job.....After planting, booming and laving a scene, I needed to make an adjustment, and I got "It's a cable XXXX show. And it's not even basic!" I laugh when I hear it, but your right in having to live with some stuff you'd like to do over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff even mentions his fears of this "style" of filming becoming a practice on feature film sets.  This is a true fear, many directors start their careers in television and wish and hope for valedation in features.  They might just bring their television "style" with them.  The acclaimed director Tony Scott works in a style similar to this, multiple cameras with telephoto lenses.

Apparently so does his brother Ridley, if you've been reading Billy Sarokin's horror stories over on RAMPS about "American Gangster".  There are exceptions to the rule in both styles.  There are TV shows that have a feature flavor and features that run more helter-skelter than the most unplanned reality television shows you can think of.  But yes, at least for the moment, they are exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely for the last time. Watch a prime time TV show on an HDTV and then tell me the sound does not live up to the same criteria that movies do. Isn't that the point of having a home "theater" To duplicate the audio and visual experience of a movie theater? The sound of some TV shows is, sadly, average at best, but then I've heard movies ( list available on request) that sucked big time. I won't belabor the point anymore and I hope I don't regret starting this thread but in defense of hard working, caring and skilled TV mixers everywhere I still maintain that the job is the same and standards in some or most TV shows are as rigid and demanding as some or most movies. I've sat for hours on the dubbing stage watching the guys who mix our show and the reason that they are able to make a great mix is because of great components. Great sounding dialogue, FX, Foley and music. Quality in, quality out. And just to set the record straight, Jeff Wexler could do my job just as easily as i could do his because he's a quality guy and mixer like I try to be. Over and out.

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving this thread for others to pursue was a suggestion so that an agreement to disagree could be reached. I'm more than happy to continue to discuss this on the assumption that this is a friendly but spirited forum where opinions are different but mutually respected. The list I mentioned will remain private because it may offend some people who may have worked on these films and it's only a TV guy's opinion after all. No tongue in cheek intended.

Regards

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all, I believe all POV's are valid and welcomed as long as they don't get personal. I think this thread has been good for the community and fun as well. The hardest thing to do with this form of dialog is get the point across without the voice and face to help one express a POV. That said, I think RVD and Mick do a great job expressing themselves with the written word and should continue the dialog here or in person, maybe lunch over at Universal or something. I don't see a plus side to listing bad sound work in TV or Films, too many examples of bad sound abound, so no list would be complete, and we will never know all the variables that went into a production. A list of good work is of more value IMHO. I'm off to the beach.

Old School

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...