Ur College Degree.

Spraggs

Said with more panache and authority than I could ever have mustered, bravo Jimmy.

bnt

If you want that kind of camera work to look better, you'd need to add some lighting. You're never going to get a professional look if you just try to use the ambient light in a bar or whatever. Or for outdoors work, try a gold reflector to warm it up a bit. In movies, even when it appears that they're using purely "practical lighting", it's souped up or augmented with film lighting.

At the risk of being picky, I honestly think that the whole thing could have been edited down to 10 minutes. Who is the target audience? There's too much in there that's unnecessary, such as that long bar scene with all that talk of things that only make sense to UCD students.

Just watched episode 4: are the film-makers aware that there is more to UCD than Arts? There are scenes in the Arts block, Library, residences, bars, and everything else is just "outside"! You have characters walking past the Science block as if it wasn't there, never mind an equally-important part of UCD, ro what about Richview for a more traditional "university quad" feel? The Engineering block could offer some dramatic locations: that atrium with the giant steam engine from Jameson's distillery, the huge windows on the top floor with all that light, the basement workshops with the wind tunnels where they're building a racing car ... you're making UCD look like a boring place where they only teach boring "humanities" subjects.

PS: aspect ratios, anyone? Some very skinny students waiting for the bus there ... :pac:

dyl10

I watched half of the first episode, it was pretty convincing.

Good Job!

Stabshauptmann

Spraggs wrote: »

1: The dialogue picks up a little bit? It's the most cringy, least believable load of piss ever created. The plugs are almost the best part since you can pretend for a moment that they're not acting.

Certainly cringy, but its believable because Ive had similar conversations. I find the dialogue believable in that its what some people might talk about, though not always its delivery.

2:Editing and camerawork (not to mention script, direction and plot) are completely useless.

I disagree. The opening is very well edited, the camera is steady and the cuts from different camera angles is mostly seemless - which is even more impressive if they only used one camera and reshot the scenes a few times. Identifying and appreciating when things are done right is a lot easier when you have the experience of seeing them done wrong. As I said, the editing and camera work is well above par from my experience of student / beginer productions.

3: The acting. I cannot believe anybody could look at this and call it, "a little stiff." Completely without talent would be closer to the mark.

Actually the girl, eve I think, isnt bad in the scene in the arts cafe. The really stiff bits are the last scene going into the appartment and the guy with the beard in the bar looks petrified to be on camera. To say its the worst thing youve ever seen just makes me think that you havent seen a lot. Its not RTE, and its not professional. But there are many signs of potential.

4: Calling this above par for student drama is an irrelevence, all that says is that student drama, at least for all those you've seen attempting it crowd, should be banned.

And heres the crux of it! You dont know the benchmark. You have unrealistic expectations. You know NOTHING about the road from beginner to professional. Thats why its a little disappointed to see how vehemently you hold you're ill-founded opinions; you neither know what your talking about, nor are willing to show any objectiveness.

I just can't believe that somebody with your opinions actually exists, nobody should have to argue their case after watching this tripe.

Oh thats obvious, that someone could have a differing opinion from you is absurd.

Are you affiliated with Dramsoc by any chance?

I am not, nor have I ever been involved in any capacity in any production by CTN, Filmsoc or Dramsoc.

Stabshauptmann

jimi_t wrote: »

This is embarassing, and completely detracts from people who actually put effort into Media and the arts in UCD (and I can assure you that this was a hastily thrown together piece that barely got off the ground to begin with)

To me, that sounds like bitterness.

The editing is adequate but the camera work is fischer price from start to finish; static fixed angles, no proper wipes or fades, very little PP.

Most scenes used more than one angle. I was impressed that they were edited together mostly seamlessly.
I'm glad they didnt use too many transition effects (would that not be a editing decision more so than a camera work issue?), a taste issue perhaps. I didnt think it was too "jumpy" from one scene to the next.

The bar scene looked like a cameraphone video of someones birthday party. If the birthday was for a ladder.

Bar scene had a lot of lighting and sound issues.

They (should) use a single boom, not individual mics. The background noise is caused by inexperience and poor control of signal gain/lack of a limiter or hard knee compressor. CTN had/have a serious budget and kit (not to mention capital grants etc...).

I thought they were using the mic built into the camera. People seemed to get louder as they moved towards the camera. But if they were using a boom fair enough, congrats for not getting the arm or shadow in any scenes.

All I'll say is that you obviously have no experience of student film production; remarks like that are extremely insulting to the various groups and socities (FilmSoc for one) who actually dedicate the time to creating high quality shorts and series'.

Again, compared to what? Unsubstantiated claim central here. Anything I saw at the ISFAs (or even filmed footage of the ISDAs) would absolutely hammer this. Hell, even coursework I've seen from far lesser equipped and funded colleges (IADT/Staofan Neafa etc...) outstrips this.

Compared to the dozens of dramsoc and filmsoc productions Ive seen, the dozens of videos and dramatisations Ive preformed and seen people perform as part of my college course and my attempt at making a short documentary with a professional film maker.

God, there are tones of problems with Ur College Degree, but to say its complete and utter rubbish just isnt true, and the harsher things that you and others on this thread have said serve no purpose other than to just make a dig at people. The **** in a hat comment is hardly constructive criticism.

Notorious

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

God, there are tones of problems with Ur College Degree, but to say its complete and utter rubbish just isnt true, and the harsher things that you and others on this thread have said serve no purpose other than to just make a dig at people. The **** in a hat comment is hardly constructive criticism.

+1

Just watched the first episode there, and I thought it was okay. The acting was pretty decent, nowhere near as bad as some of the above posters portrayed it. I think jimi_t and Spraggs are being a bit harsh. Its a college production lads, it hasn't been shortlisted for an Academy Award.

jimi_t

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

To me, that sounds like bitterness.

Tbh, looking through some of your other posts you're fairly liberal with the old lemon juice yourself. Anyway, why in gods name would I be bitter about it? It's been a running joke between me and some friends I had involved in it since the first episode; mainly because they're deeply embarassed by it.

I can assure you, any 'bitterness' I might display is solely the result of the damage this is doing to peoples opinion of the standard of student media performance in UCD. I've seen firsthand people literally sacrificing their degrees and social life to put their whole into producing good quality plays and films, simply because they love to. This travesty is massively demeaning and damaging to them.

Compared to the dozens of dramsoc and filmsoc productions Ive seen...

OK I'm just going to stop you there. Any prospective freshers or others who saw that statement might think this was the 'above average' benchmark for Dramsoc/Filmsoc or any of the various media orientated courses. This is ignorant at best and dangerous at worst. CTN (imo of course) have ruined more young minds than syphilis and cholera combined - they're nothing more than a 'CVsoc'; name one other show or short they've produced in the last 2 years bar a few cheesy promos with various society auditors.

Directed at Spraggs wrote:

And heres the crux of it! You dont know the benchmark. You have unrealistic expectations. You know NOTHING about the road from beginner to professional. Thats why its a little disappointed to see how vehemently you hold you're ill-founded opinions; you neither know what your talking about, nor are willing to show any objectiveness.

Well I both know what I'm talking about and am willing to show objectiveness and almost completely agree with Spraggs. I was Tech Manager of the Dramsoc for a spell, do a lot of outside work in theatre, student film and gigs (Electric Picnic, World Cultural Festival etc...) and know just about everyone involved in Filmsoc and the fine work they do. To try and draw a comparison between CTN and any other 'media' society is pure fallacy.

Want to talk about objectivity? Two of the main roles are (albeit minor) actors in Dramsoc and they agree with me that it was a crock of **** from start to finish (and there's more than a few people on here that know exactly who I'm talking about and will back me up on this - Mr.Minraise, Bubs101, simonrooneyzaga etc...). These are otherwise quite competent and talented performers who got roped into doing this lowest common denominator screentest.

Setting the benchmark too high is one thing, but the viewer is literally tripping over it watching 'Ur College Degree'.

God, there are tones of problems with Ur College Degree, but to say its complete and utter rubbish just isnt true,

You obviously didn't watch as far as the rap battle.

The **** in a hat comment is hardly constructive criticism.[/U]

When was this thread ever about constructive criticism?

insert-gear

It's so dire its almost funny. The worst part of the entire thing was the blonde girls accent.

ye jehnowarrahymean. if she cant do it, then why couldnt she just speak normally? or were they scared theyd come across too d4?

Sivousplait

insert-gear wrote: »

It's so dire its almost funny. The worst part of the entire thing was the blonde girls accent.

ye jehnowarrahymean. if she cant do it, then why couldnt she just speak normally? or were they scared theyd come across too d4?

that accent pissed me off!

muffinman

It's pretty poor in terms of cringeworthiness throughout, but I actually still enjoyed it... It's not intellectual or challenging, or even very realistic, but it's definitely watchable and enjoyable as a quick 15 minute show... People need to take it easy

Mardy Bum

Its actually painful to watch not cringe worthy, painful. The script is a joke.

However it does seem like a more of an educational show about UCD which is a useful thing for first years. Entertainment wise- a different story.

melekalikimaka

the guy who made it really worked hard at this, first attempt and all, credit where credit is due. I worked in CTN for 2 years... its fairly hard to get anything done in that soc tbh

Riamfada

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the guy who made it really worked hard at this, first attempt and all, credit where credit is due. I worked in CTN for 2 years... its fairly hard to get anything done in that soc tbh

I think alot of the flak CTN gets its as a result of its image. If it changes the image people might be alot more responsive to amature television and alot less likely to criticise.

Belfield FM? I should have become involved in CTN. Bah Ive left now

jimi_t

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the guy who made it really worked hard at this, first attempt and all

Yeah, but we don't all flyer and poster the campus announcing our first attempt - that's why its called the first attempt

''melekalikimaka" wrote:

I worked in CTN for 2 years... its fairly hard to get anything done in that soc tbh

Doing what? That seems to be literally the only thing CTN has produced

RIP-sanity

I watched the first episode = fairly dreadful.
But I then watched the last episode and it was really not bad at all. I look forward to seeing future improvements!

El Siglo

I just said I'd have a look at this thread as it's still going for some reason, and I thought I would watch a bit of that program and see why it was so bad again and I came to the conclusion that this ****e, reaffirms my disdain for ucd, thank Jaysus I'm finished with the place. Not to say that "the grass is greener on the other side" anywhere else, but this program does no favours to dear old belfield! Really, if you want to be reminded how much you might dislike arts in ucd, the knobs, fake accents, stupid people in general, then watch this tripe! In fairness, they have honed in on one area of ucd, honed on certain subjects, and further honed in on a particular kind of group within ucd, the 'I'm in 1st year in UCD, how smart am after finishing the leaving cert in leeson st and look at me with the UCD scarf and new accent' students. Above the poor acting, dialogue, camera work etc... it's the total white wash that annoys me the most, I can't stress this enough it's pretty much only representative of arts, and this is a shame and instead portrays the stereotypical, homogeneous view of third level 'the-know-it-all-college-hippies'. If it were to work again, it needs:

• Engineering students,
• Ag Science students,
• Nursing students,
• the coronas/wolfe tones/republic of loose in the student bar,
• Pulse Security managing drunken ruffians,
• A mature student(s) either arguing with a lecturer or asking ridiculous questions,
• More foreigners, the place isn't composed entirely of middle-class, white, Irish people, and....
• better dialogue that's not focussed entirely on the college, discuss 'normal' topics (Newcastle being relegated, 'Susan Boyle or Mary Harney' etc....)

These are just things I think that are worth highlighting.:rolleyes:

Riamfada

You forgot the smokers and the old smokin' wall.

Riamfada

I think its supposed to be subtly taking the piss out of all that.. it is right?

jimi_t

Grimes wrote: »

I think its supposed to be subtly taking the piss out of all that.. it is right?

I don't think subtlety was its strong suit - we'll try not to do a post-modern interpretation to make it seem like less of a travesty, thank you very much

WellCultured

That was hilarious!