I found this funny, though I think you could easily have got all the gags into a 2min shorter film which would have made it funnier. The opening lines were strong (up to about 1min) and it got progerssively weaker. Ditto the acting.
It was clearly shot on a low quality camera or phone or something, but you have to work with what you've got and you clearly went to the trouble of ensuring the pictures and sound were all clear enough.
I liked the editing - especially the cutaways to the car and shopping. One flaw which did stand out - you crossed the line for "Well you're addicted to Dr Pepper's"
Keep working on the scripts - I think there's talent there.
Thanks Tim for your feedback!
Could you elaborate on the crossing the line with "Well you're addicted to Dr Pepper's." Do you mean it was out of nowhere or something else?
"Crossing the line" , "Crossing the Axis of Action" or "180 degree rule" are all different terms for the same thing.
Basically it is designed to stop people apparently swapping places in consecutive clips.
Imagine a line between two characters (normally their eye line) extending beyobnd them. Any two consecutive shots showing both or one of the characters shoud be from cameras positioned on the same side of the line.
Alternatively, imagine a shot of a single person running. Now imagine a line drawn along his path (assuming a straightish path). Again any two consecutive shots should be from the same side of that line.
OK. Simple "rules" but why?
Two people talk. Fred on screen left, Joe on screen right. If you then cut to a shot from the other side of "the line" the two have swapped screen sides - they appear to have swapped places. This just looks wrong.
In your case, before the line I mention we have a two shot between "A" and "B". "A" is looking towards screen right. You then cut to the shot where he says the "Dr Pepper" line and he appears to be looking away now from "B" because he is addressing the line towards screen right.
In the case of the running person, it looks wrong because in one shot he's running left to right and the next, right to left.
There are several ways to deal with this they fall into two categories.
1. Allowing the audience to see the camera change it's point of view or the axis of action change
(a) actually move the camera around the scene (and leave it rolling whilst this happens)
(b) let the action move in such a way that the line moves (eg two people circle each other, runner atcs around)
2. Insert a neutral shot between the two opposing points of view
(a) a neutral shot of one of the characters - a shot along the line (face on or back on). This could be regarded as a shorthand way of implying a moved camera.
(b) a utaway of something else entirely (effectively "hiding" the movement of the camera from one side of teh line to the other)
I probably haven't explained that very well, but Google the terms at the top of this post if you need a better explanation.
Incidentally, breaking these rules is often used deliberately to cause confusion for the viewer. It is particularly good in fast cut fight scenes when you want to give a sense of the confusion in battle, for example.
Ah yes, the 180 rule. I didn't know you were referring to that. Great catch!
Really good. TimStannard pretty much said it all. A little shorter and obviously something like this benefits from having more of a creative style and direction but youre clearly working with a limited budget/equipment and its still really good. Fantastic opening lines.
I make short comedy skits myself and the temptation is always to draw it out and use ALL of the footage I filmed. Unfortunately it rarely makes for a good video. I've learned to tighten up the script beforehand and to be a bit more aggressive in the edit, this will result in a shorter and comedically sharper video. That's the best advice I can give you really. This wasn't bad, but could have been a lot better using the simple disciplines I just mentioned.
Be encouraged though, I see a bright comedic skit writing future ahead of you.