I agree with Dan, entirely. That was the point of my previous post on
this topic. In case people watched that and thought it was something
that was done in a bootstrapped fashion, please refer to the
dual-camera shoot, complete with boom operator (read: a third crew
member that's getting paid to
Yeah - sorry if I wasn't clear. That seemed like a rebuttal of my
point, but I assumed it'd be clear from the context of everything
I've written here and from my videoblog that I wasn't disagreeing
with Dan's comment that It looks like it took a team of people being
paid a lot of money to
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah - sorry if I wasn't clear. That seemed like a rebuttal of my
point, but I assumed it'd be clear from the context of everything
I've written here and from my videoblog that I wasn't disagreeing
with Dan's comment
On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 AM, Bill Cammack wrote:
Now, thanks to what you said... This finally makes sense to me. Pay
the thousands of dollars for the studio because you can turn around
and tell someone else to pay you even MORE money, plus your percentage
for doing the live episodes of your
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case, why on earth would the producer set up a low budget
videoblog for clarkandmichael.com, with a total cost per episode of
just a few hundred dollars, when he can artificially inflate the
budget by hiring
What is a videoblog?
It's fair to say that past discussions on this list have shown that
opinions differ somewhat violently on this issue... but there is a
school of thought that says that 'videoblogging' has become
associated with a personal documentary style of videomaking
distributed
I have a very different take on CM.
Nowhere in it is there any pretense that it is personal, that even within
its fictional context it is created by the two stars, or that it is produced
without a camera and sound crew.
Note the intro to episode one: They hired a film crew. Then the hyper
meta
OK. I told myself I wasn't going to say anything more about this
because I have too much to do.
But.
You're kind of right. But.
I don't know.
I just...
It's *not* The Office.
maybe that's the problem for me.
I just think they do it badly.
And worse, I think they do it in a way that's very TV
Almost nothing reaches the heights of the Gervais version of The Office.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I know. But I didn't really mean that I don't like it because it's
not as funny as The Office. I meant that it's too much like The
Office to avoid direct comparison. If it was doing something
revolutionary with the form that The Office set down, I'd be more
forgiving that it's comedy/quality
I'm a little confused by the confusion over Clark and Michael. This was a
CBS-funded scripted comedy web series that debuted in May of 2007. It was
created, written by, and stars real-life friends Michael Cera and Clark
Duke. They play fictionalized versions of themselves.
I don't think it was
That said, I don't think CBS threw a lot of money at this project. It was
being developed in 2006 and made in 2007, so that was kinda early in the
game for a studio to put something out there. I saw an interview with Clark
and Michael in which they said there wasn't a lot of money involved and
12 matches
Mail list logo
