FSBELLA Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Hello everyone, Just wanted to mention that my partner (most of you know) Gene Martin was the Production Sound Mixer on this weekends #1 movie ; ACT OF VALOR. great action sequences, great story and a good twist at the end. shot by Shane Hurlbut & one of the directors; Scott Waugh PS- Gene is to humble to say anything, so I will -no ADR at all, they used all his Location prod tracks. Good Job Gene. Thank you, Frank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfisk Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Thomas Popp was telling me they were shooting LIVE ROUNDS on that. As in..real bullets flying around. I don't know what percentage was live rounds, or anything like that, but he said it was one of the most intense shoots he's ever done. It would be great for them to write an article about their experience on that shoot. Thomas said TONS of cameras. All DSLRs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Miramontes Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Tell him I said CONGRATS! I gotta check that movie out now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dre Rivera Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I saw the film this weekend. And i was impressed. Real seals, live rounds and real training missions. Gene did a great job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaudio Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Congrats to both Gene and Thomas for an excellent job well done! I'm definitely going to watch this in theaters. It must have been great working with real American heroes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheisticmystic Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Im still not sure how live rounds and active duty special forces members make a "better" movie. What does the convention of using service members as actors bring to a story? Unless we've just witnessed another step in the evolution of hybrid "propaganda-film/reality-TV/Stephen King's-Running-Man" content? I'm also wondering as a newbie what the reaction from the seasoned vets here would be if someone were to seek advice on an upcoming shoot that featured "live rounds" to increase realism. Give me a break. Best, Steven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Im still not sure how live rounds and active duty special forces members make a "better" movie. What does the convention of using service members as actors bring to a story? Unless we've just witnessed another step in the evolution of hybrid "propaganda-film/reality-TV/Stephen King's-Running-Man" content? I'm also wondering as a newbie what the reaction from the seasoned vets here would be if someone were to seek advice on an upcoming shoot that featured "live rounds" to increase realism. Give me a break. Best, Steven I'm with you. Pretty shocking this movie has done this well. The trailer I saw in the theatre looked like one of the Army ads, and it then came as a surprise that it was a "feature film". I thought it looked terrible (as I suppose it should with a bunch of DSLRs running around). And I'm sure it sounded like a lot of radio mics, which is the only way to get something like this, so not knocking that. Can I remind everyone, however, that no ADR does not equal good sound. While it is impressive to get it all, sometimes things should be replaced for one reason or another. The idea of "stick radio mics on everyone and sort it out later" is catching on far too quickly for my liking. But I guess this movie was more like a reality show meets a propoganda pic anyway. I'm sure live rounds were used to save money on visual effects, but it seems pretty crazy to me. No thank you. Perhaps nobody is allowed to say anything bad about this movie. UNAMERICAN!! But nice job Gene and Tommy for hanging in there under what must have been challenging conditiions. Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I would feel safer with live rounds used by well-trained SEALS than I would with blanks used by actors with little firearm training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylormadeaudio Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 ...a sign of things to come? (and I'm not just speaking in terms of production sound.) I haven't seen the production in question... not too big of an urge to see it, but it's good to know what people are watching/praising these days -- it says a lot about who we are as a society, good and bad. ~tt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Waelder Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I haven't seen the film. But it's always worth noting when a vendor is also active working in the field. Just as Glen Trew's experiences as a production mixer enhance his credibility when he makes equipment recommendations, Gene's experience on Act of Valor underpins his work at The Audio Department. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheisticmystic Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 John, So you think it's an acceptable filmmaking practice then to use live rounds, or were you just sardonically playing with the prototypical "false dilemma"? Best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 John, So you think it's an acceptable filmmaking practice then to use live rounds, or were you just sardonically playing with the prototypical "false dilemma"? Best When you use one generalized comment to generate a tangential generalized question the answer can only be 43 -- which we all know is simply a "one up" on 42. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Reilly Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Haven't seen (or heard it yet). But from what I can gather, some of the scenes had pretty intense physicality that might surpass that of Matt Damon etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaudio Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 Im still not sure how live rounds and active duty special forces members make a "better" movie. What does the convention of using service members as actors bring to a story? Unless we've just witnessed another step in the evolution of hybrid "propaganda-film/reality-TV/Stephen King's-Running-Man" content? I'm also wondering as a newbie what the reaction from the seasoned vets here would be if someone were to seek advice on an upcoming shoot that featured "live rounds" to increase realism. Give me a break. Best, Steven Perhaps it is because this is possibly what they go through in real life on a regular basis so they're not "acting" but yet they are... I'll have to watch it to really give my opinion on it (story wise). IMHO using live rounds on a film set is something I would definitely not feel comfortable with, in experienced hands or not. Although I do go to the range from time to time to get some rounds in so its not that I'm not use to the sound of a gun firing at close range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I'd feel comfortable about live rounds on set with proper safety protools. I also don't mind seeing our active duty military personnel on screen. I think that Restrepo is a good example of a documentary that has both components. What I'm not comfortable with is the fact that a fictional film is "marketing" the use of active duty personnel and the use of live fire as somehow legitimizing the authenticity of the film or trying to portray it as reality. This is not war, it is a film about war, or anti-terrorism, or OOTW, or whatever. At best, it is a really cool recruiting tool. At worst, it will mislead the public at large who are not war fighters into giving them a false perception of what they think war is and legitimizing war based upon these false perceptions, when it comes time to vote politicians into office who have the power to leverage our military power. This is in no means meant as a discredit to the below the line technicians who I'm sure did a great job on the movie making process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Reilly Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 That was a well recorded rant. Schoeps? A different sort of live rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheisticmystic Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I would feel safer with live rounds used by well-trained SEALS than I would with blanks used by actors with little firearm training. I guess I should have more clearly stated..."that's a false dilemma"... and doesn't address the question of whether it's an advisable filmmaking practice. Incidentally, it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I guess I should have more clearly stated..."that's a false dilemma"... and doesn't address the question of whether it's an advisable filmmaking practice. Incidentally, it's not. I guess I missed the part where I was required to specifically address the overall advisability of safe filmmaking practice. My statement still stands as I phrased it. It's a point of view, not a false dilemma. It's only a dilemma if you're faced with that specific decision. Blanks are regularly used on sets, and in the hands of actors poorly trained in firearm handling, they are more dangerous than live rounds under the purview of trained Navy SEALS. http://propguys.com/gundanger/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Reilly Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Visuals looked decent in the trailer, sound had some tinny spots (might have been contextually accurate) on my phones. http://actofvalor.com/official/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I'm also wondering as a newbie what the reaction from the seasoned vets here would be if someone were to seek advice on an upcoming shoot that featured "live rounds" to increase realism. Give me a break. Best, Steven I'm a "seasoned vet" and when we trained with "live rounds" it was very f'ing real. After watching the film 2 nights ago, knowing that these sequences where being shot with such obstacles, it affected my reaction to the film through the experiences I had from the ARMY and those on set as a sound mixer.....it presents a level of difficulty and discipline that was involved in the making of this film both military and civilian.... then add in the notion that these where actual events according to the film. If you're going to film real military, then you better be prepared to live and train like they do if you want to be authentic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Perhaps nobody is allowed to say anything bad about this movie. UNAMERICAN!! Robert seriously, why would you even say that..... The acting was lame..... maybe they should have traded real seals and rounds for real actors and effects.....oh wait, then it would be like everything else. It's a different film, shot in a different way for a different effect (authenticity perhaps), good for them, I wish I was there to be a part of it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dre Rivera Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 seriously, why would you even say that..... The acting was lame..... maybe they should have traded real seals and rounds for real actors and effects.....oh wait, then it would be like everything else. It's a different film, shot in a different way for a different effect (authenticity perhaps), good for them, I wish I was there to be a part of it! +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheisticmystic Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I'm a "seasoned vet" and when we trained with "live rounds" it was very f'ing real. After watching the film 2 nights ago, knowing that these sequences where being shot with such obstacles, it affected my reaction to the film through the experiences I had from the ARMY and those on set as a sound mixer.....it presents a level of difficulty and discipline that was involved in the making of this film both military and civilian.... then add in the notion that these where actual events according to the film. If you're going to film real military, then you better be prepared to live and train like they do if you want to be authentic. Hey Zack, Ive trained with live rounds as well, and yet I separate my experiences in the ARMY with my learning of the FILMmaking craft. A film, not even a documentary is ever ever ever going to be AUTHENTIC, it's always going to be a representation of something. You can't "film real military" because NO film is REAL, it's as simple as that. Therefore, any firearms you discharge while filming entertainment is either propagandized, marketed, or otherwise manipulative bullshit. Best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSBELLA Posted February 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Hey Zack, Ive trained with live rounds as well, and yet I separate my experiences in the ARMY with my learning of the FILMmaking craft. A film, not even a documentary is ever ever ever going to be AUTHENTIC, it's always going to be a representation of something. You can't "film real military" because NO film is REAL, it's as simple as that. Therefore, any firearms you discharge while filming entertainment is either propagandized, marketed, or otherwise manipulative bullshit. Best Mystic- please go see the movie, you will be pleasantly surprised. especially the use of when they used the live rounds. Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dre Rivera Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 most people speaking negatively of the film or the process have not even seen the film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.