On low-budg shit they're one of the first positions cut. This is why cheap movies are often confusing without having obvious problems.
Everything is going low-budg. Especially Amazon and Netflix bullshit. This is one of the reasons everything kind of sucks now - nobody hires scripties when they're doing cheap bullshit.
Kind of like sound guys.
This is Vanity Fair, and they pretty much did the whole stupid thing with a boom mic hanging up way the fuck too high.
I'm a film editor. None of that stuff is stuff I care about, tbh. Straw continuity? I think if the viewer is watching the straws there's something more seriously wrong with the film. Clock continuity would only really be an issue if the plot centred on time (24, for example, or a bomb that's scheduled to go off at a certain point or whatever). Otherwise why is the audience bored enough to be looking at that? I even liked the eyeline being low, although it massively changed the performance (made him seem like he was shirking the issue, which I quite enjoyed). There are serious errors that occur without a script supervisor, however, that this video doesn't mention. A character running on in the wide shot and walking on in all the others, for example, means that you can't use the wide and thus have problems establishing place etc. Or a character who is really angry in all the shots taken in the morning and then super chill in the rest of the coverage which was taken after lunch (or even a day/week/month/year after) means you can effectively only use half the shots. I agree that script supervisors are vital to the success of a film. But flagging up the placement of objects is the least of what they do.
I don't have any experience of working in film, so all I can do is try to understand this through my own frame of reference. In this case, that is mixing a piece of music. I know kleinbl00 has plenty of experience there too, so maybe he can confirm or deny my understanding. I'm far from a master mixing engineer, but what I've learnt over the last few years is that the mixdown process is greater than the sum or its parts. It hundreds of little changes that, in isolation, don't seem to make that much difference. For example, you could: - Add a compressor to make sure the volume of a vocal performance stays consistent - Add some subtle timed delay to a snare drum to give it a greater sense of power - Setup sidechain compression between the kick and the bass so that they're not fighting for space in the mix As a composer, it's very easy to look at those things and think: "none of that stuff is stuff I care about". I care about the arrangement, melodic themes, and chord progressions. They're the big, important things. What difference is a bit of EQ going to make? If the listener is focusing on the vocal compression then there's something more seriously wrong with the music. But if at the end of the mixdown process you reverse all those tiny adjustments, suddenly you're greeted with a significantly more confusing and harder to understand piece of music. Yes, a lot of the changes can seem almost subliminal and inconsequential to the average ear. But add enough of those subtleties up and suddenly it's not so subtle. And ignoring them all results in less comprehensible and immersive experience for the audience. That's why there's a professional their who can sense those things making those changes.
A better analogy is that of a tracking engineer to a mixing engineer. If the snare drum has a couple busted snares on it, no amount of plugins and Class A circuitry is going to make it sound good. The mixing engineer may have no idea how to dress a drum kit to get it on tape in a viable way. They may be an absolute genius at a Phil Spectre wall'o'sound but be incapable of getting a barbershop quartet in the can. The talented ones, however, know that their success relies on the success of others upstream of them. I have a really hard time making dialog sound good if the actor's sweater is rubbing on the lav head every time he raises his arms. As a post production sound mixer, "clothing noise" is either something I subtract through surgery and liberal application of plugins and trickery or something I add through foley. But as a location sound mixer, "clothing noise" is 50% of my job. When I've worked on stuff for WB or CBS or HBO or paramount, the scriptie sets up right next to me, with a video tap, recording every take and noting the position of everything that moves in the course of the action. They take shots of hair, makeup, wardrobe and set decoration for every single setup. When I've worked on stuff for Youtube there's no scriptie. A character running in the wides and walking in the closeups is the kind of boner that the extras will call out. I mean, anybody who has been through a little film school knows the 180 rule. Without a scriptie, it's possible that the 180 rule isn't going to be applied to inserts, especially as that's likely 2nd unit and they're out on the hunt without any direct congress with 1st unit. That's usually how stuff like this happens. Your greater point - a million little things that the audience doesn't notice add up to the difference between mediocrity and greatness - is apt. But it's more noteworthy to point out that editors are reliant on script supervisors to give them material to cut... and that they rarely meet. Post is rarely invited to wrap parties because they haven't even started working yet while everyone else is taillights.
I am not a filmmaker and have no expertise in this space. However I do watch films and if I were watching one and the person’s smoothie was instantly almost gone, I may actually notice that. If I noticed that, it would take me out of the film. I’m lucky that I can get really, really immersed in a film and it’s a bummer to be taken out.
My wife's latest pet peeve is actors drinking from empty containers (coffee cups, mostly). Heard dozens of times, during any show: "There's nothing in that cup." She also won't allow me in the room any more when she watches her "silly shows" like Riverdale, or this british show where a ghost, a vampire, and a werewolf live together and try to pass as normal people. I would play games on my phone, or read a book while she watched (because I wasn't interested in the show), and would still be able to speak a character's dialog before they did, or knew where the story was going before the episode's "big reveal". The plots and writing were so predictable, and I am so story-minded and write for a living, that it didn't take any effort for me to predict story twists, or even the words characters would say. Now, after discussing with her how scenes are shot, how editing works to tell a story, how framing telegraphs what is going to happen, and how story arcs are crafted, she is mostly watching everything on screen that ISN'T the story. The empty cup the actor is pretending to drink from. The continuity errors. The framing of a scene to include some conspicuous item. Etc. In related news: I may be a jerk, wizzing all over the shows she likes. :(
The trick is learning to let go. The problem is that if a show is poorly constructed or written, we lose the willful suspension of disbelief and then everything goes to shit. It helps to know that episodics are fundamentally ritualistic. They're designed to walk you through a familiar set of emotions; Asaad Kelada's ouvre is basically one long riff of paint-by-numbers. But, I mean, Bierstadts look like Bierstadts. Parrish look like Parrish. Here's the most popular work of art of the 20th century, with 1 in 4 people in the US owning a copy at some point: Guernica it ain't. But then, Guernica it ain't. Nobody bought Kinkaid because they wanted to be challenged - they bought Kinkaid because it looked good over the couch. The couch you sit on and watch Riverdale.
This sounds amazing. What's it called?this british show where a ghost, a vampire, and a werewolf live together and try to pass as normal people.
You got me :) I do indeed spend as little time on film sets as possible! I fear I may have given the wrong impression: I am deeply indebted to script supervisors, they are absolutely vital (and tend to be lovely, unassuming people with minimal ego issues too, if the ones I've met are anything to go by). My point was that for editing, their input in ensuring emotional continuity is what matters above all else. Then maybe eyelines and whatnot. Hair and stuff maybe next. Straws further down the list. I agree with the sentiment expressed in your OP 100%. I just feel Vanity Fair's exploration of the role of Script is a bit simplistic. I wasn't aiming to antagonise, just to add to the debate :)
If a script supervisor does their job, you don't have to worry about any of that shit. If there's no script supervisor, we all have to worry about that shit - as a post supervisor I gotta pull out all sorts of dumb crap out of the hat in order to cover for an emotionally flat scene that underpins the whole movie (or whatever). Mass-media explanations are almost always annoying from a professional perspective. Learning to let go is the key to happiness.