While I do think Ottman was being genuine in his response and his account of how "the scene" came to be, watching this again just reinforces how bad the editing is, and while it does appear to be shot fairly poorly, you nicely demonstrated how the scene can be improved using the existing footage. Ironically, Ottman claims the need to cut it down as one of the reasons for the terrible editing, and yet in order to make the scene better, you cut it down even further. I'm going to chop this up to tunnel vision on his part, as he was probably staring at this footage for hundreds by the time he was done with this scene. The cinematography is quite bizarre and rather bad, though. The extremely wide shot thrown in the middle, why did they even film that? It's as if you're filming a several minute-long scene that either starts or ends with a wide shot, but the characters in the shot are all doing things mid-scene. I would love to give Ottman the benefit of the doubt, and I do give him credit for taking responsibility for his editing, but there's no way around it, this scene was a major blunder. And while circumstances and studio pressure no doubt made things difficult, isn't that why you get paid to do the job? I think other editors encounter similar situations all the time, and the truly great ones rise above those problems and get the job done. I really don't mean to be judging Ottman, but I think he could have and should have done a better job.
@@rars0n It's one scene out of an entire movie... why is everyone so obsessed with this scene? Why not break down some of the good editing like the Live Aid scene. It's like people who never watched the whole movie think the whole thing has terrible editing based on this one scene that everyone keeps obsessing about. It won best editing which is voted on by professional film editors.
@@Powderwombat Frankly, I don't give a crap about awards because I've seen way too many bad movies receive them. As to why we're talking about this scene, well it's the subject of the video, that's why.
*I had already seen that interview in another vídeo. And, on that video, I said that what Ottman said is what everybody already knows. Another thing: "I was nominated by my peers". Well, they have to 'fill' the category with five nominees. The problem is medics voting on dentists, football players voting on tennis players, and so on.*
I guess that would make sense. I know that some Academy members don't watch all the Best Picture nominees throughout the years. Heck, I heard that some members of the Academy haven't seen 12 Years a Slave and just picked that as Best Picture. Also, many members of the Academy don't watch all the animated films nominated for Best Animated Feature throughout the years either. Also, they don't take animation seriously and usually pick Disney films. That's probably why The LEGO Movie wasn't nominated for Best Animated Feature and Big Hero 6 beat How to Train Your Dragon 2.
This movie has no idea what it means to take your time and tell the story. The movie basically went - hey im freddy mercury im gonna be a singer -*meets band* -Okay im a succesful singer now -*multiple montages of popular concerts and song debuts* -Okay we're done
Yeah, I ve just recently watched it, and it just feels like that... Damn, even the Meg starred by Statham have more coherent editing than this. Malek performance is great, but the editing feels weird
Most jobs are unrewarding when it comes to genuine recognition. At best you have a job where the end result is admired and you're worshipped as a genius, but no one sees the years and years of daily learning, practice and growth. Worse still, it isn't even you that they care about. It's the end product and an imaginary cartoon version of you when it comes to status jobs. The only reward for your work is your own satisfaction. Don't get caught up in desiring recognition. It's an unquenchable lust.
It feels like directors just wasted a lot of time shooting scenes without real planning so they just fix the movie in editing therefore the film has crazy pacing to accomodate those errors.
I think there are cases where the editing is noticeable in a good way... I also think it's okay that oscars in technical categories go to "in your face" movies. Costuming is important in conveying personnality and social context in a contemporary romcom, but I'm not gonna complain if the oscar almost always goes to a period movie. Similarly, I can understand why best editing would go to a movie like cloud atlas with many noticeable edits (in this case, scene transitions) that nonetheless enhance the story. So it would make sense to have certain genres and tropes over-represented in that way. But the editing still should be good.
Whiplash together with Memento, Mad Max Fury Road and Moulin Rouge get that drive and energy through editing without the gratuitous sloppiness of Bohemian Rapsody.
You’re telling me the Oscars AREN’T the qualified, impartial arbiters of quality they present themselves as..? Next you will be telling me politicians don’t actually represent my interests!
If you watch the whole scene you will find a much bigger problem not even mentioned in the video, that seriously grinds my gears. The cuts are made mid sentence in terrible parts of the dialogue, with no motive and flow to it. Honestly it feels like the editor was given an hour to make each scene, because this are movie editing 101 things.
@@keknation Well I agree with most points about this film after a bit further insight I feel the editing of the scene in particular is on point with the way Freddy thought and saw the world. The director (in my opinion) was trying to show the manic and un rational thought processes being very hard to keep up with the way he sees the world. It docent sit with all viewers but I think its quite effective of standing out.
Same happened to me. I was thinking a lot of times during the film: the pace is so akward and I feel uncomfortable. Now I understand better why was that
I heard somewhere that Queen put in their contracts that they wanted each band member to get equal screen time. I think that would make some of these choices make a lot more sense.
Yup, that's where marketing failed miserably. It was supposed to be a movie about Queen, but they turned it into The Story of Freddie Mercury and his backing band.
@@rodrigozamo that's what marketing had no one wants to see a movie about the band Queen, not that Queen isn't a great band it's just not interesting. What do you want to see a movie about Nirvana? No you want to the rise and fall story arch. Everyone in the world knows Freddie Mercury's name only fans can name the rest of the band. If you want to sell a movie you need to sell it to a wide audience.
Usually, Academy voters don't see the whole movie before voting. People behind the film send the best edited 10 to 20 minutes of footage to the academy to see. So the worst edited parts of a film are not taken into account. It's like choosing best edited 10 minutes of all films nominated.
HOOOLY damn what bullshit. How is this logic fair towards all the movies that DON'T have awful editing to begin with? "Oh yeah, this movie cuts all over the place for no reason... but it has a few scenes without that issue so HERE'S YOUR OSCAR FOR BEST EDITING!" fuck off, Oscars... -_-
If ur are black cast. Oscar only favor them. Remember they call la la land is a winner but they turn around said moonshine , they choose black panther over. Infinity war. Black panther was ok. But Infinity war has better cgi
@Ryan Kim it happens, coincidentally Kingsman 2 and Logan Lucky both used country roads in pivotal moments in the movie, and both shared channing Tatum on the bill. But theyre completely different movies. Just as Rocketman happens to come along after this. Theyre 2 different movies.
The editing was influenced by factors surrounding the contract - all band members had to have equal screen time. Must've been a nightmare to create a narrative with that hanging over your head - all creativy being taken away from you.
I mean they could've worked around that in the actual script- made something which was honest, showed all the band members falling out and showed their individual relationships with Freddie.
@KitchensAreHot right. My point being that they could've worked around contractual obligations in better ways. This doesn't absolve the editor's horrendous work
Great video; I’m a screen student and I noticed all of this while I was watching the movie. I did a bit of research into this and I found that the editor had a lot of challenges. He needed to give the four band members equal screen time, they had to edit the film on their own, and they had a bunch of footage that needed to be shifted through and turn into a cohesive film. I don’t blame the editor for this, this could have been amazing but the stress of all of those things combined plus a deadline would lead to this. Thank you for brining this to peoples attention! Great video again. EDIT- spelling errors and when in the hell did I get 2K likes!!!!!???? Thank you!!??
without a whole lot of direction for the film in terms of, the director literally DIDNT do his job half the time, i dont blame the editor for turning out with what he was given
The café scene looks like an emergency edit of a scene that had to be reshot with not all of the actors available. That would explain a lot of the poor shots and framing and inconsistent blocking.
Pretty much exactly what it was. It was a reshoot and it was kinda tacked on there. Reshoot by the non singer director. Highly highly doubt that it has a thing to do with . insistence on screen time. They wouldn't care about that and this scene doesn't exactly bulk up on screen time
It looks like they had the table and chairs set up in such a way that they didn't want to move, and couldn't quite capture all 4 members in one shot without showing awkward parts of the fifth guy. So they just stitched together different shots instead.
It felt like the director was unwilling to go 3 seconds without showing Freddy Mercury. The film could have been just called "Freddy Mercury and 3 Pretty Cool Dudes whose Names Escape Me".
One of my problems with the scene is that Reed says "you've got a gift. All of you have." And then he says "so, what makes Queen different from all the other wanabe rock stars". Like you just said they had a gift what do you mean? I don't know if that's an editing thing but that stuck out to me.
I think it was mean't to be sarcastic. He basically mean't that so like every other rockstar I meet,they have a gift,a talent. He basically wanted to get formalities out of the way and get to the real question which was what separated queen from other rock bands.
@@islipperyfellow6487 sorry it took so long to reply, but you know what? Fair. I can see that. I don't now if that's what the writers intended but that's likely.
@@jasper_of_puppets Because the othe commenter is wrong. The Oscars are really weird awards because they try to exist between commercial and artistic movies, so they never award very popular movies, but also don't usually award really obscure movies. How connected the makers of the films are to academy members is also a factor, but there are always exceptions. Basically, the Oscars are awards given by snobs that are trying really hard not to be snobs while awarding their friends, so you often end with really weird victories, others that are well deserved, and many that aren't deserved at all (how can anyone decide to give Best Picture to Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction is a good example. They're both well made movies, but one is technically and arguably artistically better and more innovative, while the other is blatant nostalgia pandering).
@@Owlero I'm not sure I completely agree with that statement though, I surely don't think it applies to all movies. Take Edgar Wright films for example, in which the editing is very on-your-face most of the time and used creatively to make transitions or jokes. I think his movies would be an example of great editing in movies: editing which is certainly noticeable but not in a negative way.
Hardcore Henry. Because even though it’s a cheesy movie all round, the fact that they made a movie with a working story, entirely shot in first person, without confusing the viewer (or making them throw up for that matter), and all without a AAA movie budget, is quite honestly amazing and commendable, even if you aren’t a fan of the concept.
The interesting thing about having May in a separate shot from the rest of the band, is that it makes it look like HE is the main character. The frame amplifies his reactions compared to Freddie and the others. I bet if you showed just that scene to someone who didn’t know of Queen, they’d assume May was the lead singer, or at least the prime creative force, from the way he seems singled out.
That's something I noticed abou the movie as well, It felt like Freddie and May were the main protagonists while the rest of the band were just tag alongs. Whenever the band is together it seems like May has the most impactful lines and is the head of the group while Freddie is there to shake things up and push the band forward, like a cartoon with two protagonist were one is feisty and the other is the voice of reason.
This was true in the beginning. May the level-headed driver with more business acumen and Freddie the creative driver. As the band gained success so did Freddie gain more confidence and establish his frontman persona.
The best editing I've ever seen is in the movie "Nightcrawler" with Jake Gyllenhaal. The editing is especially noticeable due to the fact that the movie is, essentially, about filming. Off topic, I just think people should watch that movie
@@hotfunnyg1rl Hot Fuzz is definitely in my top 5 films for sure. Editing, dialogue and characters in that movie are fantastic. The rest of Edgar Wright's films are awesome too but I just really like Hot Fuzz
because it's a movie about gay immigrant, from their point of view of course. im not trying to offend Freddie, im trying to say that they're focusing at the context of the characters and the cast and not the technical or plot sides.
As a lifetime fan of Queen I would have liked to see more of their early tour of Japan and how John joined the group. Definitely the song "Fat Bottomed Girls" about 6 years out of context came as a shock at my first viewing.
Yeah I would’ve been way more interested if the movie was a 4 hour movie or if it was split into 2 parts I felt like the movie focused to much on freddie and not enough about the proper band they made freddie look like some party guy who didn’t care about the boys and made roger look like some angry dude who just sleeps around (tbf tho roger was working on the film so he was at least aware that they where making him look that way)
I live in Japan and practically all my bosses are fans of Queen and were excited to see this movie. I'm sure they would have loved to have seen more of their time in Japan.
The movie also excluded like 75% of the bands history. People who were emotionally involved in the topic should never have full creative control over a movie - which is supposed to be a biopic - like this.
I also feel like the movie went too fast so you couldn't take in and feel a whole scene. I wouldn't have minded if the movie was a whole extra hour longer, just for really deep and emotional scenes to actually get where they were going. That's another thing, I feel like we never got to the climax of a few scenes because things just went too fast and didn't settle. Besides that, I actually did find the movie pretty entertaining.
Jonathan Allard funny, because he’s doing a lot more than you are and actually making money! Kind of pathetic that you have to shit on this guy’s looks from behind your computer screen
Thanks for pointing this out. I was preoccupied with the weird, counterproductive historical inaccuracies and astonished by the fact that they managed to make a movie about Queen and Freddie Mercury so incredibly dull.
The movie also excluded like 75% of the bands history. People who were emotionally involved in the topic should never have full creative control over a movie - which is supposed to be a biopic - like this.
I mean Elton John had considerable amount of control over rocketman but he never interfered with the movie too much. Bohemian Rhapsody is a completely different story u can clearly tell Roger Taylor and Brian May had major influence over the film. They conveniently add all the bad things to Freddie and they look like complete angels
@@davidnelson702 the queen "days of our lives" documentary only lasted 2 hours and I don't remember how many minutes, and they covered almost everything and gave the same amount of attention to each member of Queen. I think that "bohemian rhapsody" could have done the same thing if the script has had written better!
I think they should have split this into two movies. The first would cover the band's formation and rise, ending with the surprising success of "Bohemian Rhapsody." The second would pick up with them as superstars and end with Freddie's death and the tribute concert.
the real reason it won an oscar for editing is because of the fact they were able to edit into a salvageable movie, director bryan singer rarely ever actually showed up to set and they had barely any footage filmed to work with because of him
Lol, you may be right. IIRC, even Taylor Swift was invited to become a voting member (if true, you can be certain she accepted & coughed up the fee), so she probably let one of her inbred Scottish Folds guide her decision.
I was about to post this but made sure to read through some comments first. John Ottman is usually pretty dope at editing, I was so confused, but then I remembered what a cluster this movie was in production, not many people probably could've made something out of that. Especially with that insane screen time contract added on as well.
it is important to realize that sometimes it is not the editor's fault. John Ottman is a very talented and skilled editor, he also responded to this video and talked about the problems he faced during the postproduction of this film.
Well then everything went wrong. You didn't mind it and this video made it look bad for you. See this is why people shouldn't over analize things. I can't take these kind of videos serious anymore since I've seen the destruction of a so called expert by a real expert. He isn't "right" just because it seems plausible. Editing is done by professionals. It's done that way for a specific reason. Sometimes they do it different that it would be done "the usual way" and sometimes they do it the usual way. But movies wouldn't have evolved if people always used the same techniques and styles.
@@cypog8479 ""Editing is done by professionals. It's done that way for a specific reason." Really? I feel like fast cut is just trendy, like shaky camera, tracking or otherwise moving shot and realistic filters. They all are instruments of cinema that greatly overused, the more you use these in your movie is better and "artistic", or so they think.
It's almost as bad as the Gilmore Girls fast camera switching on every actor's quick comment. I don't watch Gilmore Girls BTW, but after the girlfriend wanted me to watch with her, I thought I was going to go into seizures as often as the camera jumped.
If we wanted real good editing, just give it to Rocketman. That movie deserved the hype they wasted on this movie (don’t get me wrong though, I love Queen and their acting in this)
And yet both were directed by Dexter Fletcher. Sort of. Fletcher was director for a few weeks on Bohemian Rhapsody since Bryan Singer was absent most of the time.
I thought Rocketman was okay, but doesn't hold a candle to Elton John's biography. The movie really does it's best to be depressing and portray Elton as a sad sack, but Elton's bio is all about self-deprecating humor. He dismisses most of his depression as juvenile and silly, unworthy of being taken seriously...which is exactly what the movie unwisely did.
@@derkeheath5172 I have read both the book and seen the movie several times and I absolutely have to disagree. Cocaine and abuse might be funny when reminiscing with the confidence that you are no longer in that. Elton’s mother telling him he will never be loved, his descent into addiction, and the abuse he suffered by John Reid was all very real to the Elton that was living through it. Elton is a very funny guy but I absolutely respect their decision to take his story seriously.
@@tsmith5670 You'd be surprised to learn how many Queen fans, indeed the fan base, are raving mad at this movie. I personally blame the fangirls who hadn't heard about Queen until they saw the movie, those who act like dedicated Queen fans now. This movie is their Bible. They're the ones.
The music editing in this movie was terrible! They regularly clipped songs at odd moments, the cut being off-beat and with a jarring shift in dynamic and instrumentation. I was regularly remarking to my family about the very poor music editing.
Yep, this is why most movies stick with their own scores. Editing a scene to a song or piece of music created before the scene was shot, while not impossible, is difficult and awkward to work with since the actors and whatnot aren't choreographed specifically to the song
From a person who loves editing videos as a hobby and studying the ins and outs of editing in films, I completely agree with this video. If an edit makes you blink with it, there's gotta be a problem. The best edits are seamless and barely noticeable.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I believe A Quiet Place deserved the award for best sound mixing. That entire movie revolved around the different levels and intensities of sounds, and without the specific changes in sound, such as when placed in the perspective of the deaf daughter the sound is cut out, the movie would not be as effective. It was done SO well.
I think there's something to be said for the goal of that movie being entirely focused around that concept though. If you are making a film that revolves around the entire concept of sound, usually that is where most of your time and effort will be placed, making it more likely to be good. Whether that movie would truly deserve an award for the sound is if the rest of the techniques complemented and accentuated the sound as well. Bladerunner 2049 has been my fav in recent memory in terms of sound design, absolutely incredible in both the diagetic sound in-film and soundtrack.
Ya I haven't even seen this movie, but I kind of refuse now. The Song Remains the Same was such a good movie too, if they made a Zeppelin biopic I wouldn't be very interested. Edit: It's not about the band, it's about the message, the profits, and the awards. Pathetic.
It's always the mediocre down to awful movies that "win" these silly plastic..err metal statues. And as always those with the most work behind the scenes get ignored most of the time.
I wasn't studying film when I first saw this movie, but I knew something was wrong when they transitioned from Queen playing "Another One Bites the Dust" to Freddie learning about the AIDS crisis. Real tasteful.
The strange thing is that a movie like The Fugitive, that had 6 editors, was way better edited than Bohemian Rapsody. Sometimes too many cooks is a good thing.
I wouldn't say that they lost ALL their credibility. 2017's (2018s?) nominees were all very good apart from Darkest Hours. I don't know what happened this year but it's clear that they're trying to include more "popular" films and attract more viewers.
Well… they usual nominate good movies. This year's nomination were bad for some reason. Last year's Best Picture nominees averaged an 88% on Metacritic, which is pretty high and gives credibility to the Oscars because it shows that they're nominating high quality, critically acclaimed films. This year's Best Picture nominees averaged a 74% percent of Metacritic. That's more than 10 points lower. Bohemian Rhapsody sits at a 49%. Now, critics aren't always right. Phenomenal works of cinema like Citizen Kane were not very well received at the time. But that's mainly because movies like Citizen Kane were ahead of their time. They were revolutionary and critics simply didn't get them. Bohemian Rhapsody is not the case. It's an average, generic, cliche film that tricked audiences into thinking it was good through manipulation of nostalgia for Queen's music and Freddie Mercury. The Academy is suppose to be better than that. It's the Academy, not the People's Choice awards. I struggle to comprehended why they decided to nominate such low quality films this year. Roma, The Favourite and BlackkKlansman were the only ones worthy. The rest were just entertaining and fun.
lokuendog Couldn't agree with you more. People have been complaining about the Oscars for years because they don't nominate popular movies. That is beyond stupid. Most people watch movies to be entertained, not to analyze the art they have to offer. The Academy is suppose to award the *best* movies of the year. That implies those pictures have art to offer. If you want an "award show" that awards movies based on how popular they are, go watch the People's Choice. Popularity does not determine the quality of something. I'm so sick of people shitting on the Oscars because they haven't given us nominees that most people watch. Fuck off with that shit. News flash, most people aren't cinephiles. Most people have no idea what goes into making good movie. Like I said before, they will just see a movie to be entertained. That's it. Thanks to so many people complaining and writing articles about the Academy not appealing the general audiences, congratulations. This year we had some of the worst nominees I've experienced in my lifetime. Good job!
Good marketing. The older folks liked the nostalgia for one of their favorite bands, the woke liked it because it's about a bisexual Parsi immigrant, and then teenaged girls liked it because Ben Hardy with long hair 😂
Zane Wong I agree! Fun movie? Sure! We all love Queen, and we want them to do well at the box office. But is it worthy of *BEST PICTURE* ?! No, no way. Rami was amazing; the rest of the film was a shoddily-executed musical romp with no substance.
I feel like Bradley Cooper deserved it because what he did was harder. He played a music star that did not exist. He created a rock star and did his own singing and performing. Malek was just doing a silly imitation of Freddie Mercury.
Honestly I blame the ridiculous demands of the surviving Queen members that forced the movie to be edited this way. The whole movie is literally one Rami Malek performance away from being a lifetime TV movie
The movie would have been way better if it was the one Sacha Baron Cohen wanted to make, but the surviving members wouldn’t let him show what their lives were actually like. They’ve got a whole god damn song about going around to gay clubs and getting gleefully drunk and high, come ON.
Personally, I thought this was the worst nomination for best editing, let alone to win it. I thought it would've gone to either BlacKkKlansman or The Favourite or Roma instead.
You know what it is, I think it probably has something to do with the process of picking the "winners". I bet most people who are voting don't actually watch all these movies, they just watch small clips. For Bohemian Rhapsody they might've just seen the part where Queen was recording "Bohemian Rhapsody" (the song) in the studio, which was actually a pretty fun sequence and very nicely cut together.
I’m not very strong in being able to describe in what i like and don’t like in movies but when I saw this film, i couldn’t help but feel negative about it. This video explained exactly why I didn’t enjoy it lol.
I don't know a whole lot about critiquing movies either but the biggest problems I had with it was definitely the weird pacing, like they spent 10 minutes on some guys sitting quietly in a room but didn't spend any time on character development or critical plot points. The other biggest problem was the horrible prosthetic teeth that Rami Malek is wearing, like I know freddy mercury had big teeth but he COULD close his mouth and he didn't sound like he had a bunch of marbles in his mouth
@@sebastianjames7423 i was a huge fan of Queen and what you say makes me not wanting to see the movie. The teeth are atrocious. They should have just used the original Rami Malek teeth.
KitchensAreHot Freddie would not have wanted that. He was a deeply private person and those who were closest to him knew that. Sacha Baron Cohen wanted to make it into a sexed up joke. I totally agree that bohemian rhapsody is not unflawed. But it was a celebration of a beautiful spirit. To portray him explicitly as drugged up and promiscuous would have been a disservice.
people who know good editing can tell when its done good but those who dont know the significance wont be able to see a difference in good or bad editing, which makes it true
This is one of those Oscar-winning movies will be forgotten sooner rather than later. People who do remember it will be asking themselves , what were we thinking?
One small but VERY annoying non-editing error I noticed was when they're recording their first record. Several shots show the sound level meters on the multitrack tape machine....the meters are pegging into the red almost all the time. While this looks cool and rockin', it would actually be recording very distorted and unlistenable audio.
Ah, possibly. It does depend, and tape often sounded really good when material was tracked "hot", or at a level above the tape's spec. Tape saturates when it's pushed like this, creating an effect that many find desirable and even seek to emulate in this age of digital production using plugins. During some of the Bohemian Rhapsody (song) vocals there are sections where this might be the case. Also, tracking hot might have been preferable as they used many vocal takes and "bounced" them, or re-recorded mixed multipart vocal harmonies back to the same tape to make room for more vocals. If these parts had been tracked within spec to the tape, this could well have introduced an unacceptable amount of hiss, as hiss from each individual track would combine during the bounce to create a cumulative and unpleasant amount of hiss in the final mix. It's honestly crazy the lengths they had to go to limited as they were to 24 tracks. I can definitely hear that kind of top end shimmer of saturation during some of the opera vocals of Rhapsody, and it's a sound that I recognise from a lot of their material around that time. However, yes, this pegging into the red for effect does look a bit silly when what you're hearing doesn't sound distorted at all.
@@motophiliac There's a difference though between slight redlining to get preamp saturation, and the full blown clipping the meters in the movie were indicating. Not saying you're wrong, just adding
@@raventrunite6459 Haven't seen the movie, but from this video I have been constantly annoyed by the color grading and the over all look. The overly contrasty garish look is just grating. Don't know if it is the grading or actual green screen, but Aidan Gillen hairs silhouette looks really off. Like it was composited over the background. The whole thing feels crammed and fake.
I'm pretty sure other editors choose the winner. Due to problems with the production (reshoots and the like), this editor apparently took a mess of a film and made it work. That probably played into the award.
ok, i am no student of film, but this critical examination, explanation and documentation of this scene in the movie is really well done. having seen this movie several times, i never could understand why critics cringed at this shot sequence. now i feel like i actually learned something basic about film making. thank you.
You alluded to it in your video, but I think it's worth explicitly noting the turmoil this film had in production. Bryan Singer was fired halfway through shooting, leading to Dexter Fletcher becoming the director for the final third of production, as well as reshoots. The editor, John Ottman, was tasked with combining two different directing styles without the guidance of the director of the first 2/3rds of production, who also did all the pre-production on the project as well. Typically, the director guides the project from pre-pro through to post and works with the editor in the editing room on the final movie. John Ottman, the editor, has only ever edited Singer's work before, dating back to 1998. So Ottman is without his only editing partner in his entire career and is met with a completely new directing style in Fletcher's final third of filming. So, in my opinion, the reason Ottman won the Oscar for best editing is not because it is the best-edited film, but because Ottman was faced with an impossible task in combining two different directing styles, shots that didn't have the proper coverage, and was without his editing partner, and essentially had to direct the movie himself in post into a movie that made millions of dollars. He saved the movie that was doomed. That's why he won the Oscar. Do I agree with it? No. No, it should not have won the Oscar. It was not the best-edited movie. But to not point this important detail out is to do a disservice to Ottman. The Oscar win, in my opinion, is far more about being recognized for the accomplishment of putting together a cohesive, financially successful movie out of the dumpster fire he was given. I'm not defending the film, as I hated it, but I think there's a lot more to the story than "it was edited badly."
So because the movie lost its director, the editor suddenly became incompetent? Any professional editor should be able to do a solid job even without the director's input. In fact that's a common way to work: the editor assembles the scene, then the director comes in and tweaks it. Hey, it's good enough for Scorsese.
Thread Bomb How can you claim the editor is “incompetent” without access to the raw source footage he’s dealing with? If the editor is given shit scenes to work with how is that on them?
I'm not sure how this information affects this particular scene. Its clear with a few omissions of cuts, it makes it more palatable to the eye. If a TH-camr can make it slightly better, why couldn't the editor?
@@itsalwayssomething7490 Agree. It's not as if the fail is about conflicting creative styles. There are in fact "violations" of some editing principles that resulted to less effective delivery of the emotional content.
I feel like they didn't even have a shot of the whole band in this scene, and that's way "so this is Queen" didn't get it, but instead got the best they had -- 3/4 of Queen. That's also probably why they cut to this (9:46) weird too wide shot: it was the only wide shot they had, and we desperately needed something other than another close-up of a face.
The Favourite, American Animals, First Man, MI - Fallout. Those films had such an awesome editing, but the Academy, once more, failed to recognize the true best. I don't even think those guys actually watch films.
I love the favorite but I think MI fallout definitely got snubbed. With the amount of action scenes and plot twists that movie had, it baffles me why it wasn't even nominated for editing.
The actually don't watch the films. They already admitted they ignore the most "obscure" animated films nominated for animated picture (Princess Kaguya, Anomalisa, Mirai, Persepolis, for example). They vote for the most known or the one their children liked most, usually Disney/Pixar. But it's actually worse, they also vote for movies they have not even seen... for Best Picture.
Huh? The sound mixing and editing in 'Bohemian Rhapsody' were as abysmal as the editing. Mind you, most people don't even know what sound mixing is and don't care about the award anyway...
@@thefirefridge5187 As much I agree that Into the Spiderverse was the best animated film last year, saying it deserved best animated picture isn't really much considering how little the Acadamy Awards actually cares about this category. If anything, i say it should have been nominated for Best Picture.
I've been learning some of these things for my own animated works for university, especially about unmotivated perspectives and angles that lend nothing to the story. Great video thanks 😊
I had interpreted the quick cuts at the table scene to be about the band's nervousness. When the guy comes to join them at the table, they all cast each other quick glances as if to say "here we go, be sharp everyone" and readjust their chairs and clothes because the casual chat is now a business meeting, one that has huge significance to the band's future. That quick cut bit didn't bother me, but the random cut to a wide of the whole cafe patio for no reason did. I kind of wondered if they had a load of bad takes to bandage over, and didn't have a better master of everyone at the table to use. It did seem like an odd decision.
That would be a good interpretation (and piece of editing) if it was just for this specific scene. The fact is ALL dialogues in this film are edited like this
John Ottman Editor of Bohemian Rhapsody Responds: th-cam.com/video/qy35ZJcxIg8/w-d-xo.html
While I do think Ottman was being genuine in his response and his account of how "the scene" came to be, watching this again just reinforces how bad the editing is, and while it does appear to be shot fairly poorly, you nicely demonstrated how the scene can be improved using the existing footage. Ironically, Ottman claims the need to cut it down as one of the reasons for the terrible editing, and yet in order to make the scene better, you cut it down even further. I'm going to chop this up to tunnel vision on his part, as he was probably staring at this footage for hundreds by the time he was done with this scene.
The cinematography is quite bizarre and rather bad, though. The extremely wide shot thrown in the middle, why did they even film that? It's as if you're filming a several minute-long scene that either starts or ends with a wide shot, but the characters in the shot are all doing things mid-scene.
I would love to give Ottman the benefit of the doubt, and I do give him credit for taking responsibility for his editing, but there's no way around it, this scene was a major blunder. And while circumstances and studio pressure no doubt made things difficult, isn't that why you get paid to do the job? I think other editors encounter similar situations all the time, and the truly great ones rise above those problems and get the job done. I really don't mean to be judging Ottman, but I think he could have and should have done a better job.
@@rars0n It's one scene out of an entire movie... why is everyone so obsessed with this scene? Why not break down some of the good editing like the Live Aid scene. It's like people who never watched the whole movie think the whole thing has terrible editing based on this one scene that everyone keeps obsessing about. It won best editing which is voted on by professional film editors.
@@Powderwombat Frankly, I don't give a crap about awards because I've seen way too many bad movies receive them. As to why we're talking about this scene, well it's the subject of the video, that's why.
*I had already seen that interview in another vídeo. And, on that video, I said that what Ottman said is what everybody already knows. Another thing: "I was nominated by my peers". Well, they have to 'fill' the category with five nominees. The problem is medics voting on dentists, football players voting on tennis players, and so on.*
*The Oscar for it wouldn't have bothered me if the movie had only one bad edited scene.*
Pretty sure by “best editing” they just meant the Live Aide scene was super accurate.
I wonder if that's the only reason why this movie won Best Film Editing.
Laura Jones
I honestly think it is. That was by far the most impressive/ambitious scene of the movie and it really was cool!
The Live Aid scene was awesome, but the rest of the movie is no where near as good.
Laura Jones
Agreed!
I guess that would make sense. I know that some Academy members don't watch all the Best Picture nominees throughout the years. Heck, I heard that some members of the Academy haven't seen 12 Years a Slave and just picked that as Best Picture. Also, many members of the Academy don't watch all the animated films nominated for Best Animated Feature throughout the years either. Also, they don't take animation seriously and usually pick Disney films. That's probably why The LEGO Movie wasn't nominated for Best Animated Feature and Big Hero 6 beat How to Train Your Dragon 2.
someone said the editing on this movie looks like when you’re rushing through instagram stories HSJSHJ
The most accurate statement I've seen
what are instagram stories?
Oftmol Farmisht on instagram you can post stories kinda like snapchat that only stay up for 24 hours
Yeah, it was me.
ugh rina tumblr user located
This movie has no idea what it means to take your time and tell the story.
The movie basically went
- hey im freddy mercury im gonna be a singer
-*meets band*
-Okay im a succesful singer now
-*multiple montages of popular concerts and song debuts*
-Okay we're done
who is freddy?
Yeah, I ve just recently watched it, and it just feels like that... Damn, even the Meg starred by Statham have more coherent editing than this. Malek performance is great, but the editing feels weird
Perfect summary of the movie :/
Maiko Garcia
Yyyyup
Ok I was thinking about watching it..is it really bad. At least worth a view?
The job of an editor is so unrewarding. If they do it well, nobody notices. If they do it badly, everyone hates it.
They're the goalkeepers of the film industry.
Like goalkeepers
I'd compare them to goalkeepers
After watching the 3 responses i can only Say, great minds think alike
Mario Benedetti, amirite?
Most jobs are unrewarding when it comes to genuine recognition. At best you have a job where the end result is admired and you're worshipped as a genius, but no one sees the years and years of daily learning, practice and growth. Worse still, it isn't even you that they care about. It's the end product and an imaginary cartoon version of you when it comes to status jobs.
The only reward for your work is your own satisfaction. Don't get caught up in desiring recognition. It's an unquenchable lust.
Is it just me or do others feel sick when there are a lot of quick cuts in a scene. Like movie motion sickness
oh me too
I know i do
I just feel really uncomfortable and unnerved
same
It feels like directors just wasted a lot of time shooting scenes without real planning so they just fix the movie in editing therefore the film has crazy pacing to accomodate those errors.
"So this is Queen?"
"Aye, Lord Baelish."
Dr. Mercury, I'm CIA.
You're a big band.
For you
Vote Baelish for mayor of Baltimore
that comment itself deserves more oscars than the movie.
As Yahtzee would say, editors are like bathroom janitors, you know they are doing a good job if you never think about them
NemesisWesker there’s been a few times where i thought about them cause i liked the eduting
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all" - God......well, Futurama
@@peytonk5986 well sometimes the bathroom is extra sparkly clean with a nice detergent smell
I think there are cases where the editing is noticeable in a good way... I also think it's okay that oscars in technical categories go to "in your face" movies. Costuming is important in conveying personnality and social context in a contemporary romcom, but I'm not gonna complain if the oscar almost always goes to a period movie.
Similarly, I can understand why best editing would go to a movie like cloud atlas with many noticeable edits (in this case, scene transitions) that nonetheless enhance the story. So it would make sense to have certain genres and tropes over-represented in that way. But the editing still should be good.
Amazing
Actor: *moves a single facial muscle*
Crew: OK SHOW HIM NOW
@Freeze_frame108 It's a good thing you made a comment so it won't be ignored anymore
🎉
😂😂😂
The only time I walked away from a movie thinking "that was some awesome editing" was after Whiplash.
Fredrik Staffansson Hot Fuzz my guy
Whiplash together with Memento, Mad Max Fury Road and Moulin Rouge get that drive and energy through editing without the gratuitous sloppiness of Bohemian Rapsody.
Ironic
SAME
Henry Sawyer yess that movie was awesome
You’re telling me the Oscars AREN’T the qualified, impartial arbiters of quality they present themselves as..? Next you will be telling me politicians don’t actually represent my interests!
Thank you good sir! 😂
Mychael Darklighter 100% the truth.
But they don't🤔
Lisa Medla that’s the joke
hahahhhahahah best comment
I don't study film, but I felt entirely bothered by this scene but didn't know why. Now I know. Great analysis
If you watch the whole scene you will find a much bigger problem not even mentioned in the video, that seriously grinds my gears. The cuts are made mid sentence in terrible parts of the dialogue, with no motive and flow to it. Honestly it feels like the editor was given an hour to make each scene, because this are movie editing 101 things.
@@keknation Well I agree with most points about this film after a bit further insight I feel the editing of the scene in particular is on point with the way Freddy thought and saw the world. The director (in my opinion) was trying to show the manic and un rational thought processes being very hard to keep up with the way he sees the world. It docent sit with all viewers but I think its quite effective of standing out.
Felt the same way in the theater. I felt unusually tense, but since I'm not a film expert, I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
Same here! The mystery is solved.
Same happened to me. I was thinking a lot of times during the film: the pace is so akward and I feel uncomfortable. Now I understand better why was that
I heard somewhere that Queen put in their contracts that they wanted each band member to get equal screen time. I think that would make some of these choices make a lot more sense.
Just use lots of wides
Yeah i think they focused more on getting each member right by casting amazingly accurately similar actors, more than anything.
Yup, that's where marketing failed miserably. It was supposed to be a movie about Queen, but they turned it into The Story of Freddie Mercury and his backing band.
@@rodrigozamo that's what marketing had no one wants to see a movie about the band Queen, not that Queen isn't a great band it's just not interesting. What do you want to see a movie about Nirvana? No you want to the rise and fall story arch. Everyone in the world knows Freddie Mercury's name only fans can name the rest of the band. If you want to sell a movie you need to sell it to a wide audience.
@@rodrigozamo No it wasn't, Brian May himself said it was mainly about Freddie.
Usually, Academy voters don't see the whole movie before voting. People behind the film send the best edited 10 to 20 minutes of footage to the academy to see. So the worst edited parts of a film are not taken into account. It's like choosing best edited 10 minutes of all films nominated.
this should have more likes, this is an actual logical answere to how this happaned
Exactly my point!!
Oh my god...my whole life is a lie
Their job is literally to watch movies, and they can't even do that? Unbelievable.
HOOOLY damn what bullshit. How is this logic fair towards all the movies that DON'T have awful editing to begin with?
"Oh yeah, this movie cuts all over the place for no reason... but it has a few scenes without that issue so HERE'S YOUR OSCAR FOR BEST EDITING!" fuck off, Oscars... -_-
I felt crazy/picky for thinking the editing in this movie was off, but now i feel 10x better that someone addressed it
lmao same, i spent the whole time thinking "why is it going so fast?"
Thankfully, we had great actors to make it tolerable
Same
Stefan Zeke literally wtf
@@princesscaty6251 What?
So you're telling me that Oscars mean absolutely nothing now? Color me surprised.
If ur are black cast. Oscar only favor them. Remember they call la la land is a winner but they turn around said moonshine , they choose black panther over. Infinity war. Black panther was ok. But Infinity war has better cgi
@@pooooo52 black panther is much better than infinity war. If you think about it infinity war has more things to focus on.
Its seems like the wanted to give it something but it wasnt good enough to warrant anything besides this
@Ryan Kim it happens, coincidentally Kingsman 2 and Logan Lucky both used country roads in pivotal moments in the movie, and both shared channing Tatum on the bill. But theyre completely different movies. Just as Rocketman happens to come along after this. Theyre 2 different movies.
@Ryan Kim i think Rocketman was a product of Elton being in kingsman. And the queen thing happened on its own or whatever went on there
Of course, the Academy read “Best Editing” as “Most Editing,” and this movie has it by a mile.
Just like a lot of instances of "Best acting" really means "most intense acting"
The editing was influenced by factors surrounding the contract - all band members had to have equal screen time.
Must've been a nightmare to create a narrative with that hanging over your head - all creativy being taken away from you.
Raymond Townsley that makes a lot of sense... Was that stated online somewhere?
@@boringbailey10 It was the producers that confirmed it. From what I understand the band members are pretty open about it.
Raymond Townsley oh ok... I mean it does make a lot of sense.
I mean they could've worked around that in the actual script- made something which was honest, showed all the band members falling out and showed their individual relationships with Freddie.
@KitchensAreHot right. My point being that they could've worked around contractual obligations in better ways. This doesn't absolve the editor's horrendous work
Great video; I’m a screen student and I noticed all of this while I was watching the movie. I did a bit of research into this and I found that the editor had a lot of challenges. He needed to give the four band members equal screen time, they had to edit the film on their own, and they had a bunch of footage that needed to be shifted through and turn into a cohesive film. I don’t blame the editor for this, this could have been amazing but the stress of all of those things combined plus a deadline would lead to this.
Thank you for brining this to peoples attention! Great video again.
EDIT- spelling errors and when in the hell did I get 2K likes!!!!!???? Thank you!!??
That's why we are just blaming the Oscars.. Bunch of stupids there
Yes. I think the voters judged this based on background info about the movie
without a whole lot of direction for the film in terms of, the director literally DIDNT do his job half the time, i dont blame the editor for turning out with what he was given
So instead of getting an E for Effort they got an Oscar?
The 4 band members didnt even get equal screen time it all revolved around freddie
The café scene looks like an emergency edit of a scene that had to be reshot with not all of the actors available. That would explain a lot of the poor shots and framing and inconsistent blocking.
These are both good theories.
I bet there was no take of Brian saying his line and Reed moving past him at the right moment.
Pretty much exactly what it was. It was a reshoot and it was kinda tacked on there. Reshoot by the non singer director.
Highly highly doubt that it has a thing to do with . insistence on screen time. They wouldn't care about that and this scene doesn't exactly bulk up on screen time
It looks like they had the table and chairs set up in such a way that they didn't want to move, and couldn't quite capture all 4 members in one shot without showing awkward parts of the fifth guy. So they just stitched together different shots instead.
It felt like the director was unwilling to go 3 seconds without showing Freddy Mercury. The film could have been just called "Freddy Mercury and 3 Pretty Cool Dudes whose Names Escape Me".
One of my problems with the scene is that Reed says "you've got a gift. All of you have." And then he says "so, what makes Queen different from all the other wanabe rock stars". Like you just said they had a gift what do you mean? I don't know if that's an editing thing but that stuck out to me.
I think it was mean't to be sarcastic. He basically mean't that so like every other rockstar I meet,they have a gift,a talent. He basically wanted to get formalities out of the way and get to the real question which was what separated queen from other rock bands.
Yeah, that didn't sit right with me either. It's like they assembled the scene out of order.
It could also be the script writing too on whoever wrote the dialogue. But I wouldn't know for sure
@@islipperyfellow6487 sorry it took so long to reply, but you know what? Fair. I can see that. I don't now if that's what the writers intended but that's likely.
That's a problem from the writing, not the editing.
The Oscars just give awards to movies with the most hype,not actually based on who's the best in the category.
Is that why The Green Book won Best Picture instead of Bohemian Rhapsody or Black Panther?
@@jasper_of_puppets Because the othe commenter is wrong. The Oscars are really weird awards because they try to exist between commercial and artistic movies, so they never award very popular movies, but also don't usually award really obscure movies. How connected the makers of the films are to academy members is also a factor, but there are always exceptions. Basically, the Oscars are awards given by snobs that are trying really hard not to be snobs while awarding their friends, so you often end with really weird victories, others that are well deserved, and many that aren't deserved at all (how can anyone decide to give Best Picture to Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction is a good example. They're both well made movies, but one is technically and arguably artistically better and more innovative, while the other is blatant nostalgia pandering).
leatherwings007 black panther being nominated is already a joke
Yes it was an unfunny joke.
I don't know if that's entirely true. Most people don't know what Moonlight or No Country For Old Men are.
Courtesy of a comment on Twitter: "Apparently 'Best Editing' now just means 'Most Editing'?"
Yeah I've seen that phrase being thrown around some of the technical categories like Sound and Vfx also.
There's definitely some truth to that
Make a video on a movie worthy of winning an Oscar for editing and why.
Yeah, this! It's interesting to see where films go wrong, but equally if not more interesting to see how things are done right.
@@randomcommenter7343 Like he said in the video, a well edited film is one in which you don't notice the editing to begin with.
@@Owlero excellent idea
@@Owlero I'm not sure I completely agree with that statement though, I surely don't think it applies to all movies. Take Edgar Wright films for example, in which the editing is very on-your-face most of the time and used creatively to make transitions or jokes. I think his movies would be an example of great editing in movies: editing which is certainly noticeable but not in a negative way.
Hardcore Henry. Because even though it’s a cheesy movie all round, the fact that they made a movie with a working story, entirely shot in first person, without confusing the viewer (or making them throw up for that matter), and all without a AAA movie budget, is quite honestly amazing and commendable, even if you aren’t a fan of the concept.
The interesting thing about having May in a separate shot from the rest of the band, is that it makes it look like HE is the main character. The frame amplifies his reactions compared to Freddie and the others. I bet if you showed just that scene to someone who didn’t know of
Queen, they’d assume May was the lead singer, or at least the prime creative force, from the way he seems singled out.
That's something I noticed abou the movie as well, It felt like Freddie and May were the main protagonists while the rest of the band were just tag alongs. Whenever the band is together it seems like May has the most impactful lines and is the head of the group while Freddie is there to shake things up and push the band forward, like a cartoon with two protagonist were one is feisty and the other is the voice of reason.
Accurate coz the movie almost did not get made due to him wanting control. Guess they finally stroked his ego
That is always may wish,to be queen front man!!@
This was true in the beginning. May the level-headed driver with more business acumen and Freddie the creative driver.
As the band gained success so did Freddie gain more confidence and establish his frontman persona.
I thought the same too.
The best editing I've ever seen is in the movie "Nightcrawler" with Jake Gyllenhaal. The editing is especially noticeable due to the fact that the movie is, essentially, about filming. Off topic, I just think people should watch that movie
@@GeckoI both good movies
my favourite editing is in the classic edgar wright films - hot fuzz, scott pilgrim, shaun of the dead and baby driver
@@hotfunnyg1rl Hot Fuzz is definitely in my top 5 films for sure. Editing, dialogue and characters in that movie are fantastic. The rest of Edgar Wright's films are awesome too but I just really like Hot Fuzz
Um yes! That movies editing is amazing. I’m going to rewatch it now
What a great movie that is! Everyone should watch it. It's intense.
The academy felt like they had to give this movie an Oscar. Someone in the back shouted: "Just give it the best editing. That will do"
It got 4, I doubt 3 would have caused a major outrage.
I died when they did the tour montage where the city names went across the screen. How this movie won anything is beyond me.
Fr, Indiana Jones had more restraint and taste jeez
Exacly!!!!!!
The best actor tho was definitely deserving!
because it's a movie about gay immigrant, from their point of view of course. im not trying to offend Freddie, im trying to say that they're focusing at the context of the characters and the cast and not the technical or plot sides.
Malek's acting was great.
As a lifetime fan of Queen I would have liked to see more of their early tour of Japan and how John joined the group. Definitely the song "Fat Bottomed Girls" about 6 years out of context came as a shock at my first viewing.
Yeah I would’ve been way more interested if the movie was a 4 hour movie or if it was split into 2 parts I felt like the movie focused to much on freddie and not enough about the proper band they made freddie look like some party guy who didn’t care about the boys and made roger look like some angry dude who just sleeps around (tbf tho roger was working on the film so he was at least aware that they where making him look that way)
@@moonsbies tbh what was going on in brian and roger head when deciding that was ok lmao
I live in Japan and practically all my bosses are fans of Queen and were excited to see this movie. I'm sure they would have loved to have seen more of their time in Japan.
yeah and we will rock you as well. they shot it with freddie having short hair
Maybe people thought they were voting in the category of 'Most Editing in a Motion Picture?
Michael and Benjamin's Podcast 😂😂
ELYSE
Nah, they were voting for “highest commission to me for editing category”
I think it only won for the live aid scene
I bet you're the first person to make that joke!
Glad I'm not the only one who found the editing strange & thought the movie rushed by too quickly
The movie also excluded like 75% of the bands history.
People who were emotionally involved in the topic should never have full creative control over a movie - which is supposed to be a biopic - like this.
I know nothing about editing but my head aches every time I come across that scene
I also feel like the movie went too fast so you couldn't take in and feel a whole scene. I wouldn't have minded if the movie was a whole extra hour longer, just for really deep and emotional scenes to actually get where they were going. That's another thing, I feel like we never got to the climax of a few scenes because things just went too fast and didn't settle. Besides that, I actually did find the movie pretty entertaining.
And the emotional scenes were so heavily focused on Freddie and his ex like? She was an ex for a reason, what about his boyfriend of like 6 years?
It always felt like a Netflix series to me.
Rami Malek:
the right guy in the wrong place
I can't help but think he doesn't even look human in this scene. Him as Freddie with short hair and a mustache at least looks decent but that? Shudder
@@derrickbonsell I think quite the opposite.
Derrick Bonsell excuse me, what are you on about?
This actor barely looks human at all, let alone in any particular role. @@derrickbonsell
Jonathan Allard funny, because he’s doing a lot more than you are and actually making money! Kind of pathetic that you have to shit on this guy’s looks from behind your computer screen
This was shown in my film lecture of an example as bad dialogue editing
Well thought and delivered without being a douche. You’ve got another sub sir.
well said. nothing worse then douchey commentators.
Same!!!
Vice should have won!!
Don’t let the haters get to you. Everyone is a critic. Few of them are good.
Thanks for pointing this out. I was preoccupied with the weird, counterproductive historical inaccuracies and astonished by the fact that they managed to make a movie about Queen and Freddie Mercury so incredibly dull.
The movie also excluded like 75% of the bands history.
People who were emotionally involved in the topic should never have full creative control over a movie - which is supposed to be a biopic - like this.
I mean Elton John had considerable amount of control over rocketman but he never interfered with the movie too much. Bohemian Rhapsody is a completely different story u can clearly tell Roger Taylor and Brian May had major influence over the film. They conveniently add all the bad things to Freddie and they look like complete angels
Theres thgis thing called time constraints. Im sure wed all love a 10 hour movie to cover everything. So pull your head out of your backside.
@@Yash-bu4du The whole film is focused on Freddie smh
What bad things you talking about?
@@davidnelson702 the queen "days of our lives" documentary only lasted 2 hours and I don't remember how many minutes, and they covered almost everything and gave the same amount of attention to each member of Queen. I think that "bohemian rhapsody" could have done the same thing if the script has had written better!
I think they should have split this into two movies. The first would cover the band's formation and rise, ending with the surprising success of "Bohemian Rhapsody." The second would pick up with them as superstars and end with Freddie's death and the tribute concert.
someone should dub the scene with pin ball sounds xD
lol why?
I'll think about it.
Someone already did it with whiplash noises
In the 'we will rock you' rehearsal scene trailer there is an extra clap when no one is clapping. Thought that was quite obvious
... because that happens at concerts. have you never been to one, cause it happens quite a lot.
the real reason it won an oscar for editing is because of the fact they were able to edit into a salvageable movie, director bryan singer rarely ever actually showed up to set and they had barely any footage filmed to work with because of him
Thank Christ someone said it. This year’s Oscars were utterly bizarre...
((Though when are they ever not?))
When Return of the King won everything
@@SamboJoBean yes
@@SamboJoBean never have I seen a man be so right
the oscars and the grammys both.
i was yelling through the grammys and i usually don't even care about them.
Nah, this year felt like we really stepped through the looking glass compared to others
who tf is choosing the oscar winners? a cat?
My cat would definitely give an Oscar to one of those 4 hour long youtube videos of birds eating seeds.
Lol, you may be right. IIRC, even Taylor Swift was invited to become a voting member (if true, you can be certain she accepted & coughed up the fee), so she probably let one of her inbred Scottish Folds guide her decision.
Delilah
*Cats.... Haha
ithelrós no, I think a cat would have better taste
I think they gave John Ottman the Oscar just because he turned the mess that was left to him after two directors into a coherent half decent film.
Half decent is a compliment.
theres something to be said about thzy
This film is less than average
I was about to post this but made sure to read through some comments first. John Ottman is usually pretty dope at editing, I was so confused, but then I remembered what a cluster this movie was in production, not many people probably could've made something out of that. Especially with that insane screen time contract added on as well.
Yeah, combined with the fact the edotor had to give all band members exactly equal screen time.
I think when criticizing an editing you should name the editor, so I can know who to watch out for.
it is important to realize that sometimes it is not the editor's fault. John Ottman is a very talented and skilled editor, he also responded to this video and talked about the problems he faced during the postproduction of this film.
@@lenkagmitrova3915 do you have a link to his response?
@@bobewu9959 Thomas Flight pinned the link, see the first comment.
@@lenkagmitrova3915
Yeah sure, lets make excuses, the final product has problems, who do you blame? Everyone else or yourself?
@@SMGJohn who do you think has the last word in the postproduction? If you think its the editor then you’re wrong.
I WANT TO BREAK FREE from these awful cuts
They're so self satisfied
@@lovevonzweigbergk4130 We don't need them
we've got to break free
When I first watched it, I didn’t really mind it, but revisiting it makes me cringe at how bad it truly is
I like your profile pic😂
Well then everything went wrong. You didn't mind it and this video made it look bad for you. See this is why people shouldn't over analize things. I can't take these kind of videos serious anymore since I've seen the destruction of a so called expert by a real expert. He isn't "right" just because it seems plausible. Editing is done by professionals. It's done that way for a specific reason. Sometimes they do it different that it would be done "the usual way" and sometimes they do it the usual way. But movies wouldn't have evolved if people always used the same techniques and styles.
Same
The editor was forced to make sure all the band members had equal screen time. Imagine being tasked with that..
It hard to make a good edit.
@@cypog8479 ""Editing is done by professionals. It's done that way for a specific reason." Really? I feel like fast cut is just trendy, like shaky camera, tracking or otherwise moving shot and realistic filters. They all are instruments of cinema that greatly overused, the more you use these in your movie is better and "artistic", or so they think.
Best editing my ass, i've had a seizure each scene
Did it screw with your stomach too? Lol
😂😂
I didn't even notice it. But then when he pointed it out I almost had a seizure
@@jawnsushi stomach, mind, soul mental health, everything
It's almost as bad as the Gilmore Girls fast camera switching on every actor's quick comment.
I don't watch Gilmore Girls BTW, but after the girlfriend wanted me to watch with her, I thought I was going to go into seizures as often as the camera jumped.
I love how all of this probably would have been forgiven had they *not* won the award
Oh my God... I always knew the editing wasn't Oscar worthy, but I can't believe I just realized how fucking terrible it really is.
If we wanted real good editing, just give it to Rocketman. That movie deserved the hype they wasted on this movie (don’t get me wrong though, I love Queen and their acting in this)
unfortunately, Rocketman was not nominated ... 😔
And yet both were directed by Dexter Fletcher. Sort of. Fletcher was director for a few weeks on Bohemian Rhapsody since Bryan Singer was absent most of the time.
I thought Rocketman was okay, but doesn't hold a candle to Elton John's biography. The movie really does it's best to be depressing and portray Elton as a sad sack, but Elton's bio is all about self-deprecating humor. He dismisses most of his depression as juvenile and silly, unworthy of being taken seriously...which is exactly what the movie unwisely did.
@@derkeheath5172 I have read both the book and seen the movie several times and I absolutely have to disagree. Cocaine and abuse might be funny when reminiscing with the confidence that you are no longer in that. Elton’s mother telling him he will never be loved, his descent into addiction, and the abuse he suffered by John Reid was all very real to the Elton that was living through it. Elton is a very funny guy but I absolutely respect their decision to take his story seriously.
rocketman was phenominal
the whole film felt like a commercial, over-stylized, over-edited, over-saturated, all mise-en-scene was too worked up
Agreed
The way a scene would start with Freddie just magically coming up with one of their more famous songs out of nowhere was so corny and jarring.
I totally agree. Still, the worst thing about it was its maddening lack of accuracy.
Nearly all criticism of the movie was drowned out by the bands fanbase who wont hear a negative word said about it.
@@tsmith5670 You'd be surprised to learn how many Queen fans, indeed the fan base, are raving mad at this movie. I personally blame the fangirls who hadn't heard about Queen until they saw the movie, those who act like dedicated Queen fans now. This movie is their Bible. They're the ones.
I remembered being uncomfortable with this scene when I saw the movie and I couldn’t name it until now.
The music editing in this movie was terrible! They regularly clipped songs at odd moments, the cut being off-beat and with a jarring shift in dynamic and instrumentation. I was regularly remarking to my family about the very poor music editing.
Yep, this is why most movies stick with their own scores. Editing a scene to a song or piece of music created before the scene was shot, while not impossible, is difficult and awkward to work with since the actors and whatnot aren't choreographed specifically to the song
I’m curious, can you name an example of this happening because I haven’t really watched the movie in a while
I've noticed this as an intentional trend in movies in general - when done right it can be quite effective, but it is overused and often used poorly.
"If you don't know what you're doing. At least do it fast"
Gotta go fast
I'm reminded of the rooftop scene in 'The Room'.
Steven Killeen Oh hi mark.
Steven Killeen holy crap. Woof.
"Bullshit ! I did naht hit her. I did naht. Oh hi Mark."
@Leandro Aude I'ts not true ;I'ts bullshit...
hahaha what a story Mark
From a person who loves editing videos as a hobby and studying the ins and outs of editing in films, I completely agree with this video. If an edit makes you blink with it, there's gotta be a problem. The best edits are seamless and barely noticeable.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I believe A Quiet Place deserved the award for best sound mixing. That entire movie revolved around the different levels and intensities of sounds, and without the specific changes in sound, such as when placed in the perspective of the deaf daughter the sound is cut out, the movie would not be as effective. It was done SO well.
a quiet place deserved a hell of a lot of awards.. incredible movie in so many ways
I think there's something to be said for the goal of that movie being entirely focused around that concept though. If you are making a film that revolves around the entire concept of sound, usually that is where most of your time and effort will be placed, making it more likely to be good.
Whether that movie would truly deserve an award for the sound is if the rest of the techniques complemented and accentuated the sound as well. Bladerunner 2049 has been my fav in recent memory in terms of sound design, absolutely incredible in both the diagetic sound in-film and soundtrack.
yeah man that movie was sooo good, movies like those srsly require recognition.
jenna I agree
One of the best movies of 2018 definitely.
The amount of cuts in one scene makes the editing of Taken 3's fence scene look good
lmao
I think the Movie was soooooo medicore. Can't believe it won 4 Oscars.
Freddie = gay = Oscarwin
Anyone = Gay or Minority = Nomination or Award winner
Ya I haven't even seen this movie, but I kind of refuse now. The Song Remains the Same was such a good movie too, if they made a Zeppelin biopic I wouldn't be very interested.
Edit: It's not about the band, it's about the message, the profits, and the awards. Pathetic.
It's always the mediocre down to awful movies that "win" these silly plastic..err metal statues. And as always those with the most work behind the scenes get ignored most of the time.
I think calling it mediocre is pushing it a bit, but it definitely was not oscar worthy.
I wasn't studying film when I first saw this movie, but I knew something was wrong when they transitioned from Queen playing "Another One Bites the Dust" to Freddie learning about the AIDS crisis. Real tasteful.
The editing in this film looked like 25 different people wanted to cram their favourite shots into each minute.
Well deserving of an academy award.
Which is exactly what happened.
The chair wanted its good shot too?
Neh! They used a musical video editing style for all movie. Works for the songs, but don't for the dialog.
@islanti You should watch the actual video, or get your eyes checked.
@islanti this is just a russian bot don't worry guys
The strange thing is that a movie like The Fugitive, that had 6 editors, was way better edited than Bohemian Rapsody. Sometimes too many cooks is a good thing.
The Academy Awards lost all their credibility years ago.
Scott C. never seen a comment like this is in just a few seconds
I wouldn't say that they lost ALL their credibility. 2017's (2018s?) nominees were all very good apart from Darkest Hours. I don't know what happened this year but it's clear that they're trying to include more "popular" films and attract more viewers.
Well… they usual nominate good movies. This year's nomination were bad for some reason. Last year's Best Picture nominees averaged an 88% on Metacritic, which is pretty high and gives credibility to the Oscars because it shows that they're nominating high quality, critically acclaimed films. This year's Best Picture nominees averaged a 74% percent of Metacritic. That's more than 10 points lower. Bohemian Rhapsody sits at a 49%.
Now, critics aren't always right. Phenomenal works of cinema like Citizen Kane were not very well received at the time. But that's mainly because movies like Citizen Kane were ahead of their time. They were revolutionary and critics simply didn't get them. Bohemian Rhapsody is not the case. It's an average, generic, cliche film that tricked audiences into thinking it was good through manipulation of nostalgia for Queen's music and Freddie Mercury.
The Academy is suppose to be better than that. It's the Academy, not the People's Choice awards. I struggle to comprehended why they decided to nominate such low quality films this year. Roma, The Favourite and BlackkKlansman were the only ones worthy. The rest were just entertaining and fun.
lokuendog Couldn't agree with you more. People have been complaining about the Oscars for years because they don't nominate popular movies. That is beyond stupid. Most people watch movies to be entertained, not to analyze the art they have to offer. The Academy is suppose to award the *best* movies of the year. That implies those pictures have art to offer. If you want an "award show" that awards movies based on how popular they are, go watch the People's Choice.
Popularity does not determine the quality of something. I'm so sick of people shitting on the Oscars because they haven't given us nominees that most people watch. Fuck off with that shit. News flash, most people aren't cinephiles. Most people have no idea what goes into making good movie. Like I said before, they will just see a movie to be entertained. That's it.
Thanks to so many people complaining and writing articles about the Academy not appealing the general audiences, congratulations. This year we had some of the worst nominees I've experienced in my lifetime. Good job!
They never had any to begin with.
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who felt this way. This entire film had serious issues. I don't get all the awards it won.
It was about a gay guy, therefore awards.
It's because all of the hip and brainless gen z kids have become obsessed with queen for some reason over the last few years
Good marketing. The older folks liked the nostalgia for one of their favorite bands, the woke liked it because it's about a bisexual Parsi immigrant, and then teenaged girls liked it because Ben Hardy with long hair 😂
The Oscars were homophobic and racist,so they’re just like ahh Freddie was gay so like Oscar
@@sebastianalvarado7867 it’s the greatest band ever and yes we are brainless
Korean Drama: *exist*
The editiors: write it down. Write it down
Only Feel like Rami Malek deserved the Oscar , everything else .....ehh not so much
Zane Wong I agree! Fun movie? Sure! We all love Queen, and we want them to do well at the box office. But is it worthy of *BEST PICTURE* ?! No, no way. Rami was amazing; the rest of the film was a shoddily-executed musical romp with no substance.
I don’t even feel like he deserved it...
Malek's performance was nothing like Freddie.
Christian bale did better
I feel like Bradley Cooper deserved it because what he did was harder. He played a music star that did not exist. He created a rock star and did his own singing and performing. Malek was just doing a silly imitation of Freddie Mercury.
Honestly I blame the ridiculous demands of the surviving Queen members that forced the movie to be edited this way. The whole movie is literally one Rami Malek performance away from being a lifetime TV movie
are u sure they did the editing
@@sisnitangent9172 No but they had demands
The movie would have been way better if it was the one Sacha Baron Cohen wanted to make, but the surviving members wouldn’t let him show what their lives were actually like. They’ve got a whole god damn song about going around to gay clubs and getting gleefully drunk and high, come ON.
I kinda get them though like you do really want your kids and your dead friend’s family to see you do drugs and go to strip clubs? I think not.
The editing makes my breath patterns get arrhythmia
Dude, compare this to Parasite and this will seem like its edited by a two-year-old
Just an average movie. Not bad but not particularly great either
Agreed
Rocketmam looks way better imo..
id give it a 3.6
@@jwansaz_music not great, not terrible
r/unexpecteddyatlov
For me, it kept switching the frames way too quick
MySelfEsteemIsLowerThanTikTok I noticed it immediately in the beginning. Had to keep pausing the movie because it gave me such terrible headaches.
I am not well versed in film AT ALL, but even I noticed how jarring that scene is to watch,
Carl Stern see I felt like it was jarring on purpose... it gave an uncomfortable feeling but that’s how the scene felt in general
Riley Dumont - Regardless of it being on purpose, it’s still bad, and if it is trying to display awkwardness, it does it the wrong way.
@@rileydumont7283 The whole film felt uncomfortable, lol
Can we stop the focus on editing for a bit and talk about just how horrid the writing is on this script?
Yeah it sounded so awkward and unnatural
@@user-hy5jy7sf9j And low-key homophobic, ironic isn't it?
@@matiasaguilar2500 huh?
I think this gave me motion sickness
And no, I'm not joking
Praetor7 ha! Funny joke!
Exactly! It made me feel uncomfortable as well.
@@herrlindner it was unpleasant
I’m just feeling sick from it. It’s gross how bad this is. Someone really fucked their way to the top for this job.
What a great comment. Are you British?
Yea when they announced this won editing I was stunned.
Personally, I thought this was the worst nomination for best editing, let alone to win it. I thought it would've gone to either BlacKkKlansman or The Favourite or Roma instead.
You know what it is, I think it probably has something to do with the process of picking the "winners". I bet most people who are voting don't actually watch all these movies, they just watch small clips. For Bohemian Rhapsody they might've just seen the part where Queen was recording "Bohemian Rhapsody" (the song) in the studio, which was actually a pretty fun sequence and very nicely cut together.
@@chrishernandez3699 or Vice as it won the BAFTA for Best Editing
I honestly didn't notice anything when I watched it the first time. But now I get why people are complaining
Expected if you don’t know how movies are made. My mother loved the movie.
@@justiceforsethrichwwg1wga160 you can still love the movie even if the editing isn't great
Can someone explain to me how there are editors editing movies like this? I mean, I can name a few youtube channels with better editing!
Producers, execs, contracts, etc.
because directors hire their "mates" and also quotas
I’m not very strong in being able to describe in what i like and don’t like in movies but when I saw this film, i couldn’t help but feel negative about it. This video explained exactly why I didn’t enjoy it lol.
Jose Lopez While I see the problem with the editing I still loved the movie.
I felt negative about it when i saw the first trailer. But i guess that's just me, i really don't like Rami Malek as Freddie.
@@bobbyb6053 He doesnt look like him but plays him incredibely good.
I don't know a whole lot about critiquing movies either but the biggest problems I had with it was definitely the weird pacing, like they spent 10 minutes on some guys sitting quietly in a room but didn't spend any time on character development or critical plot points. The other biggest problem was the horrible prosthetic teeth that Rami Malek is wearing, like I know freddy mercury had big teeth but he COULD close his mouth and he didn't sound like he had a bunch of marbles in his mouth
@@sebastianjames7423 i was a huge fan of Queen and what you say makes me not wanting to see the movie. The teeth are atrocious. They should have just used the original Rami Malek teeth.
Freddie's life was so much more interesting and richer than the movie. Still this was an entertaining movie that people liked.
Freddie's life is too rich to be covered in a 2 hours movie
@@grandkhan9261 facts
Let’s be real Freddie’s life is too rich to cover in a movie of any length below 10 hours
@@grandkhan9261 Doesn't change the fact, that you can do way better even within a 2 hour movies.
KitchensAreHot Freddie would not have wanted that. He was a deeply private person and those who were closest to him knew that. Sacha Baron Cohen wanted to make it into a sexed up joke. I totally agree that bohemian rhapsody is not unflawed. But it was a celebration of a beautiful spirit. To portray him explicitly as drugged up and promiscuous would have been a disservice.
I'll show this to my boyfriend if he ever says I make things complicated
ahahahah but women are indeed complicated
same LOL but yes, we're pretty damn complicated--"women; cant live with em, cant live without em"
@@lcope9 I live without em.
Empiric Wisdom no you don't. You have your mother. Isn't she a woman? ;)
A funny woman. Keeper.
Never saw the movie but this scene is giving me motion sickness.
This sort of editing works in a music video, but it’s HORRIBLE in a scene where people are just sitting down and having a conversation.
Im no where near an editor but isn't there a saying that editing is a hard job because when you do it good, nobody notices. Kinda the opposite here
yes. that's true
people who know good editing can tell when its done good but those who dont know the significance wont be able to see a difference in good or bad editing, which makes it true
This is one of those Oscar-winning movies will be forgotten sooner rather than later. People who do remember it will be asking themselves , what were we thinking?
I watch it at least 3 times a day so, I don’t think I’ll forget it easily.
@@just_a_queen_fan0321 how do you not get bored?
@@just_a_queen_fan0321 no you don’t
@@just_a_queen_fan0321 You should probably just watch actual Queen footage.
Atleast it didn't win Best Picture so that's a good thing
Oscars logic: Best Editing = Most Editing
One small but VERY annoying non-editing error I noticed was when they're recording their first record. Several shots show the sound level meters on the multitrack tape machine....the meters are pegging into the red almost all the time. While this looks cool and rockin', it would actually be recording very distorted and unlistenable audio.
Ah, possibly. It does depend, and tape often sounded really good when material was tracked "hot", or at a level above the tape's spec.
Tape saturates when it's pushed like this, creating an effect that many find desirable and even seek to emulate in this age of digital production using plugins. During some of the Bohemian Rhapsody (song) vocals there are sections where this might be the case.
Also, tracking hot might have been preferable as they used many vocal takes and "bounced" them, or re-recorded mixed multipart vocal harmonies back to the same tape to make room for more vocals. If these parts had been tracked within spec to the tape, this could well have introduced an unacceptable amount of hiss, as hiss from each individual track would combine during the bounce to create a cumulative and unpleasant amount of hiss in the final mix.
It's honestly crazy the lengths they had to go to limited as they were to 24 tracks. I can definitely hear that kind of top end shimmer of saturation during some of the opera vocals of Rhapsody, and it's a sound that I recognise from a lot of their material around that time.
However, yes, this pegging into the red for effect does look a bit silly when what you're hearing doesn't sound distorted at all.
@@motophiliac There's a difference though between slight redlining to get preamp saturation, and the full blown clipping the meters in the movie were indicating. Not saying you're wrong, just adding
It goes to 11
It’s shouldn’t won for editing that’s for sure. I enjoyed the film but since when did stylization mean “editing”.
right ?? i mean nice™️ set, costume, colourgrading (which i suppose is ? lowkey more producing ?) ...but editing ??? hmmm
@@raventrunite6459 Haven't seen the movie, but from this video I have been constantly annoyed by the color grading and the over all look. The overly contrasty garish look is just grating. Don't know if it is the grading or actual green screen, but Aidan Gillen hairs silhouette looks really off. Like it was composited over the background. The whole thing feels crammed and fake.
I'm pretty sure other editors choose the winner. Due to problems with the production (reshoots and the like), this editor apparently took a mess of a film and made it work. That probably played into the award.
This film sucked from top to bottom. Not just editing lol
I agree and think it was a film that Is enjoyable. It's not amazing but honestly it doesn't have to be for me to like it a lot.
ok, i am no student of film, but this critical examination, explanation and documentation of this scene in the movie is really well done. having seen this movie several times, i never could understand why critics cringed at this shot sequence. now i feel like i actually learned something basic about film making. thank you.
It’s like you’re in a zoom call and whoever made noise will have the camera switch to them.
Just when you think the Oscars can’t lose anymore credibility, the take it to a whole new level.
You alluded to it in your video, but I think it's worth explicitly noting the turmoil this film had in production. Bryan Singer was fired halfway through shooting, leading to Dexter Fletcher becoming the director for the final third of production, as well as reshoots. The editor, John Ottman, was tasked with combining two different directing styles without the guidance of the director of the first 2/3rds of production, who also did all the pre-production on the project as well. Typically, the director guides the project from pre-pro through to post and works with the editor in the editing room on the final movie.
John Ottman, the editor, has only ever edited Singer's work before, dating back to 1998. So Ottman is without his only editing partner in his entire career and is met with a completely new directing style in Fletcher's final third of filming. So, in my opinion, the reason Ottman won the Oscar for best editing is not because it is the best-edited film, but because Ottman was faced with an impossible task in combining two different directing styles, shots that didn't have the proper coverage, and was without his editing partner, and essentially had to direct the movie himself in post into a movie that made millions of dollars. He saved the movie that was doomed. That's why he won the Oscar.
Do I agree with it? No. No, it should not have won the Oscar. It was not the best-edited movie. But to not point this important detail out is to do a disservice to Ottman. The Oscar win, in my opinion, is far more about being recognized for the accomplishment of putting together a cohesive, financially successful movie out of the dumpster fire he was given.
I'm not defending the film, as I hated it, but I think there's a lot more to the story than "it was edited badly."
Glad someone wasn't ignorant of what transpired.
So because the movie lost its director, the editor suddenly became incompetent? Any professional editor should be able to do a solid job even without the director's input. In fact that's a common way to work: the editor assembles the scene, then the director comes in and tweaks it. Hey, it's good enough for Scorsese.
Thread Bomb How can you claim the editor is “incompetent” without access to the raw source footage he’s dealing with? If the editor is given shit scenes to work with how is that on them?
I'm not sure how this information affects this particular scene. Its clear with a few omissions of cuts, it makes it more palatable to the eye. If a TH-camr can make it slightly better, why couldn't the editor?
@@itsalwayssomething7490 Agree. It's not as if the fail is about conflicting creative styles. There are in fact "violations" of some editing principles that resulted to less effective delivery of the emotional content.
Couldny agree more. When I saw this movie I didnt feel connected at all, everything went by so fast..
@@chief_mourner Almost famous is amazing!
@@chief_mourner whiplash isnt based a real group or band, but is a very worthey movie.
I feel like they didn't even have a shot of the whole band in this scene, and that's way "so this is Queen" didn't get it, but instead got the best they had -- 3/4 of Queen. That's also probably why they cut to this (9:46) weird too wide shot: it was the only wide shot they had, and we desperately needed something other than another close-up of a face.
Apparently someone approached the editor about this. He just said "don't stop me know, I'm under pressure. I want it all".
*applause*
When Singer was removed from the project, the editor said, "The show must go on!"
Editing causes Sheer Heart Attack
now*
Hopefully they told him “Don’t try suicide!”
The Favourite, American Animals, First Man, MI - Fallout. Those films had such an awesome editing, but the Academy, once more, failed to recognize the true best.
I don't even think those guys actually watch films.
MI-Fallout might be the most impressive in this case. Thanks for the reminder.
Searching was up there too
I love the favorite but I think MI fallout definitely got snubbed. With the amount of action scenes and plot twists that movie had, it baffles me why it wasn't even nominated for editing.
The actually don't watch the films. They already admitted they ignore the most "obscure" animated films nominated for animated picture (Princess Kaguya, Anomalisa, Mirai, Persepolis, for example). They vote for the most known or the one their children liked most, usually Disney/Pixar.
But it's actually worse, they also vote for movies they have not even seen... for Best Picture.
I love MI-Fallout, but bohemian rhapsody was good.
Only Oscar I felt was deserved was Rami Malek- best actor, and maybe best sound mixing
Roma deserved the sound awards.
Huh? The sound mixing and editing in 'Bohemian Rhapsody' were as abysmal as the editing. Mind you, most people don't even know what sound mixing is and don't care about the award anyway...
Rami won just because he's potraying a gay icon, something the academy is wanking on nowadays
Into the Spiderverse was well deserving of Best Animated Picture too
@@thefirefridge5187 As much I agree that Into the Spiderverse was the best animated film last year, saying it deserved best animated picture isn't really much considering how little the Acadamy Awards actually cares about this category.
If anything, i say it should have been nominated for Best Picture.
I've been learning some of these things for my own animated works for university, especially about unmotivated perspectives and angles that lend nothing to the story.
Great video thanks 😊
Jesus the cinematography and editing gave me a headache
Thank you! I finally understand why I hated that table scene and what bothered me throughout this movie.
I had interpreted the quick cuts at the table scene to be about the band's nervousness. When the guy comes to join them at the table, they all cast each other quick glances as if to say "here we go, be sharp everyone" and readjust their chairs and clothes because the casual chat is now a business meeting, one that has huge significance to the band's future. That quick cut bit didn't bother me, but the random cut to a wide of the whole cafe patio for no reason did. I kind of wondered if they had a load of bad takes to bandage over, and didn't have a better master of everyone at the table to use. It did seem like an odd decision.
That would be a good interpretation (and piece of editing) if it was just for this specific scene. The fact is ALL dialogues in this film are edited like this
The “funny” scene in goodfellas has tons of nervousness without shit editing lol