Poor editing onTV shows

[CottonEyedHorn]

It was rampant on early 80s shows. I used to see crew members all the time caught in a reflection of a window or mirror. I figured we were beyond that nowadays, so imagine my surprise when I catch a "Lie to Me" episode on Hulu and see this at the 31:18 mark

Hulu.com

 

[Napoleon]

Sometimes it's the editor's fault.

Sometimes it's the script supervisor's fault.

If that small amount of hand was the shot that had less hand than any of the other shots, then the editor kicked *** at his/her job.

On a show you usually have two to three takes that the director likes and that the scripty notes. If the other takes that were good had more hand and the shots without any hand sucked, then there's not much the editor can do.

 

[accuratehorn]

What about the microphone up in the air above the characters' heads? This irritates me, and I have seen it a hundred times.

 

[Napoleon]

accuratehorn

That microphone is what the guy in the photo above was working so hard to keep out of the shot.

Problems with microphones:

1) They're needed if you want to watch a film or TV show that has sound.

2) The "boom operator" (the guy... almost always male... that holds the long pole with the microphone on the end) doesn't know if the mic is in the shot unless someone tells him.

And it's not someone who is standing nearby, it has to be someone from "video village". (The place a little ways away or even in the next room where the director, scripty, and possible producers are sitting in director's chairs stairing at a 13 inch B/W monitor.)

-Usually the director is looking at the faces and/or body language of the actors to see if they are giving what the director wants from them.

-Usually the scripty is making sure that the characters are wearing the exact same thing that they were wearing in the other shots of this scene as well as in the scenes right before and right after this one. (i.e. Are they wearing their hat, was their pen in their left hand or right hand, were their sleeves rolled up or where they down when we shot that scene before we broke for lunch?...)

-And the producers are really there just so people don't forget that they are "attached" to this project so that they don't get hassled when they want to squeeze the actors and the crew for every last penny so that they can buy a 3rd vacation home or not worry about their wife getting her 7th "procedure" in the last 4 years.

(The producers also may be on set scamming for young actresses or loose crew, usually hair & make-up girls, who might be up for a shag sometime in the near future.)

So you see, there isn't always someone looking out for the mic to let the boom operator know that the mic is in the shot.

PS- I have been a boom op for a small/no-budget film and I would have probably tried to have the boom down below, pointing up towards the mouths of the actor & actress in order to (a) keep my arms from getting tired, (b) keep my mic out of the shot, (c) get their voices better because they are talking down, and (d) keep my arm or hand out of the shot. But you can't tell what action takes place in this scene solely from this still.

 

[Texanne]

Having been involved in the production of live on-stage performances as well as videotaped productions, I can forgive just about anything except poor writing. I can even forgive bad acting. But when the vehicle is god-awful ... that I cannot forgive.

 

[TexCutter]

The editor who left the hand in the shot for any reason did not kick ***. All they had to do is very slightly enlarge the shot and then shift it a hair to the right to push the hand out of frame. At the resolutions at which these shows are captured you would have to blow it up far more than that for it to become noticeable.

If they didn't want to do that they could have matted out the hand and duplicated a section of the wall/door to put where the hand used to be. This might not have looked perfect but would be far less noticeable than a hand in the shot.

Either of these solutions would take an editor less than 20 seconds in the first case and less than a couple of minutes in the second. It would have been so easy to fix that my guess is no one ever saw it or really didn't care. And the OP was right to call out the editor on this one.

Same goes for the boom mike. Happens all the time but never stays in the shot if the editor knows what they are doing and isn't lazy.

 

[RomaVicta]

You seem to be thinking in terms of still shots. If you enlarge the objects in the frame, the reverse shots won't match and there will likely be a distracting pop zoom.

This is not on the editor. Editors work with what they are given. If there was an editorial solution to this problem, the editor likely brought it to the attention of a producer who vetoed spending any extra money.

This is on the crew that shot the film/tape. As stated above, the boom operator doesn't always have a monitor to see if the mic or their arm is in the shot. The DP should know what is in his/her frame. For TV, the producer should also being paying attention to this. TV remains a producer's medium.

 

[TexCutter]

With all due respect, I stand by my original statement. The amount that the shot would need to be enlarged would be so minimal no one would ever see it. 102 percent probably would have done it. However, if you really wanted to be stickler about it you enlarge the reverse shot to match.

And if your producer won't let you do that then you matte out the hand and replace it with part of the adjacent material. I fail to see how a couple of minutes at most of an editor's time increases the budget.

Having been editing professionally for 15+ years I have to get rid of mics, c- stands, lights, hands, feet, cables etc.. on a near weekly basis. It irks me to no end when I get careless shots like this but I would never let it stay in the frame if it can be fixed. And I've never met a producer with a keen enough eye to even see what I did unless they're sitting behind me watching.

 

[RomaVicta]

I've some professional involvement in the industry myself, but not much on the technical end. Perhaps ("evidently" is a better choice of word here), the editor's capability to change what he gets has advanced since I learned about the process. I'm impressed.

Thanks for the update, TxCutter.

 

[BigWill]

Roma, being in "Gang Bang Girls XI" doesn't really qualify you as being "in the industry".

 

[RomaVicta]

But is a fluffer even actually "in" the movie?

Boy, I miss Hollywood. Well, that big house two blocks off Ventura Blvd.

 

[Bevo5]

Eh..or you freaking push the frame over to the left about an inch and you're fine.

But, was that phantom hand part of the story line that maybe you just didn't pick up on?

 

[shorty]

I have more of a problem with the props in the scene not being consistent. For example, they sit down and whoever they are talking brings in a coffee service and pour coffee for everyone. Two second later in the scene, the coffee table is clean, no coffee service, and no coffee cups with coffee.

Did they think we would not notice?

 

[Statalyzer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[johnny chimpo]

 

[1899horn]

As an editor, yes it should be taken care of in post. That fix would take a minimum of 10 minutes to enlarge and move over. What I always found aggravating is when the producer talks about shots that we should have, but don't.

 

[HornFinc]

I'm 40 years old and that Three Men and a Baby shot still freaks me out.