Great review, the two big issues with 'Rogue Elements' weren't budget-related. It's perfectly possible to ensure good dialogue and good acting talent on a minimal budget before principal photography even begins.
A very precise breakdown, but a good one. To me, the film mostly exuded a significant lack of creativity. I would never spend my money on crowdfunding someone else's toys, especially when they’re already successful enough in life. That’s not meant in a dismissive way to those who did choose to contribute.
Yeah I really feel you there. That's one thing that frustrated me with the short movie. I mean Yeah it's serviceable, it is competent and fine I guess. But it just lacks any kind of distinguished style and creative edge, I figured that it would have some artistic edge to it, because Drinker brings up some really cool gems that have a unique artistic feel to them. I figured he'd try to do something to make it more special when he criticizes Hollywood's lack of creativity. I mean like I said it is done fairly well for what it is. I was just waiting to see some more artistic flair in the movie. But it is just so rigid in its routine generic predictable style. You can say the director can be part of that too, but he is just following what Drinker has written, and seems to direct the scenes fine. I know this seems to be from the earlier Ryan Drake books, I heard his writing gets stronger with later volumes.
@@shusterandy I'm not much of a novel reader myself- just hoped for a snappy take on story and dialogue. What Drinker shows in his TD fixes series I think is actually (at times really) good, but none of that here. Most of all the dialogue and the story outline seems like a beginner's take on this matter. The look is solid enough indeed, it's what you get for 300k I guess- that's why you need to spice it up any way you can to show the core of your intentions and the potential with greater resources. I also think releasing a short and calling it a poc is ill-advised. Better would have been to create an elevated poc trailer of about 10 minutes like the Blomkamp stuff, focusing on polished scenes with better character styling and an emphasis on strong punchy lines, without being diluted by mediocre editing and story-progressing scenes. Now, there’s no emphasis anywhere, hence the generic feel.
I enjoy his content and watched for quite a while before realising he was a writer. I listened to a couple of books on audible and they were unmemorable and kind of average. Obviously many people like them, but they were like airport novels, or late teen fiction, to me personally. This proof of concept was bad. The assault on the bad guy hut was pretty woeful. I pray for his sake it gets reworked.
I salute you for backing the project, watching it, and then taking all this time to go over it. I didn't back it. I saw the trailer (Rogue Elements - Official Trailer) and was appalled. I tried to politely point out many issues you did that were obvious even in the trailer, including a complete lack of basic editing tricks like L and J cuts, and the dialogue delivery being bloated, hammy, and out of character. I don't think the director took me seriously, but in his defense, it's possible all of my suggestions came too late to be useful.
i've noticed the director in quite a few comment sections for the reviews for this and ill just say that hes not the best at taking ANY kind of critique bad or good! Much like the drinker himself. Over on IMBD its getting 9s and 10s which i'm guessing is from drinkers minions..I think this is extremely unfair and is not doing CD any favours.
I am also a fan of The Drinker. What I have seen on screen with this project was shocking. I was expecting so much more. The dialogue was pitiful, -Boring -Generic, -Heard a thousand times in other TV shows and movies. -Full of cliché and nonsense. It was embarrassing and cringe to listen too. This is labelled "A proof on concept",,, I don't get it. What we have seen on the screen is a revenge story set in the Special ops world. This concept has been done thousands of time before on TV or in movies by Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum and Lee Child. What is there to prove here? Was it to prove that his books could be adapted for TV or movies? Perhaps they could, but what we learned while watching this short movie, is that Will Jordan AKA The critical drinker cannot write for TV or movies. There is a huge difference between a screen writer and an author as we can see after watching this project. Maybe it was to prove that the team hired to produce this movie was up to the task? We also got an answer after that. Of course not. Some will say that the budget of 300 thousand dollars was very small but, I beg to differ. Nothing was forcing them to make a 42 minutes long movie. In the original plan, the movie was set to be a 20 minutes long. but, plans changed after receiving triple what the funding campaigned was asking for and instead of putting the extra money on the quality of what was going to be put on screen, they decided to extend the run time. What was put on screen could have been shot with a few Go pros and some DJI cameras. At no point were RED cameras and their powerful lens felt used in an original manner. The only reason I know they used proper camera equipment was because of the interior filming in poor light conditions. A drone and a Jig would also have been useful. I really wanted this short movie to work out as I think it's time to see something new on TV, something original, but this is not it. Let's face it, The Drinker is probably going to have to sell the rights to his books getting a consultant credit for his troubles. Shocking. Now go watch the new show "The Agency" look at what they did with a minimum of words.
This was a solid breakdown. Overall, I'm a big fan of Critical Drinker. While I understand that this was only a concept, and the budget wasn't big, I was still expecting something much more competent than this perplexing dud. In too many ways it mimicked what Drinker has been criticizing in mainstream Hollywood productions. I haven't read his books, so I don't know if there was a disconnect between the source material and the script. As a writer myself, I hope this was a case of a poor adaptation. Maybe my expectations were too high? Sorry Drinker, if you're known for your insightful, critical reviews, then you'd better be prepared to bring an A-game to anything you write/produce. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Drinker is obviously a grifter; he's just some guy who got popular with the Disney Star Wars movies reviews and banked on making that kind of slam dunk low effort videos; not even being willing to go balls deep with his dissections of the politics of movies (there's way better and more intelligent creators who dive into stuff like that). Dude has zero nuance, artistic comprehension or original creative voice. Critics (not that his criticism isn't surface level and basic, same as his writing apparently) that think their criticism will make them good creators have it backwards, if their drive to create was strong they would've done that first, not the other way around.
@@yosaru Someone who knows FA about movies but has realised its an easy money maker.. Hes tried and tried to get famous over the years by ANY means possible Hes been exposed so many times for knowing NOTHING about movies! he also changes to titles when his over the top predictions dont come to fruition. Watch RE In all its glory and youll see just how talented he REALLY is..
Great review, the two big issues with 'Rogue Elements' weren't budget-related. It's perfectly possible to ensure good dialogue and good acting talent on a minimal budget before principal photography even begins.
A very precise breakdown, but a good one.
To me, the film mostly exuded a significant lack of creativity.
I would never spend my money on crowdfunding someone else's toys, especially when they’re already successful enough in life. That’s not meant in a dismissive way to those who did choose to contribute.
Yeah I really feel you there. That's one thing that frustrated me with the short movie. I mean Yeah it's serviceable, it is competent and fine I guess. But it just lacks any kind of distinguished style and creative edge, I figured that it would have some artistic edge to it, because Drinker brings up some really cool gems that have a unique artistic feel to them. I figured he'd try to do something to make it more special when he criticizes Hollywood's lack of creativity. I mean like I said it is done fairly well for what it is. I was just waiting to see some more artistic flair in the movie. But it is just so rigid in its routine generic predictable style. You can say the director can be part of that too, but he is just following what Drinker has written, and seems to direct the scenes fine. I know this seems to be from the earlier Ryan Drake books, I heard his writing gets stronger with later volumes.
@@shusterandy I'm not much of a novel reader myself- just hoped for a snappy take on story and dialogue. What Drinker shows in his TD fixes series I think is actually (at times really) good, but none of that here. Most of all the dialogue and the story outline seems like a beginner's take on this matter.
The look is solid enough indeed, it's what you get for 300k I guess- that's why you need to spice it up any way you can to show the core of your intentions and the potential with greater resources.
I also think releasing a short and calling it a poc is ill-advised. Better would have been to create an elevated poc trailer of about 10 minutes like the Blomkamp stuff, focusing on polished scenes with better character styling and an emphasis on strong punchy lines, without being diluted by mediocre editing and story-progressing scenes. Now, there’s no emphasis anywhere, hence the generic feel.
I enjoy his content and watched for quite a while before realising he was a writer. I listened to a couple of books on audible and they were unmemorable and kind of average. Obviously many people like them, but they were like airport novels, or late teen fiction, to me personally. This proof of concept was bad. The assault on the bad guy hut was pretty woeful. I pray for his sake it gets reworked.
I salute you for backing the project, watching it, and then taking all this time to go over it. I didn't back it. I saw the trailer (Rogue Elements - Official Trailer) and was appalled. I tried to politely point out many issues you did that were obvious even in the trailer, including a complete lack of basic editing tricks like L and J cuts, and the dialogue delivery being bloated, hammy, and out of character. I don't think the director took me seriously, but in his defense, it's possible all of my suggestions came too late to be useful.
i've noticed the director in quite a few comment sections for the reviews for this and ill just say that hes not the best at taking ANY kind of critique bad or good!
Much like the drinker himself.
Over on IMBD its getting 9s and 10s which i'm guessing is from drinkers minions..I think this is extremely unfair and is not doing CD any favours.
I am also a fan of The Drinker.
What I have seen on screen with this project was shocking. I was expecting so much more.
The dialogue was pitiful,
-Boring
-Generic,
-Heard a thousand times in other TV shows and movies.
-Full of cliché and nonsense.
It was embarrassing and cringe to listen too.
This is labelled "A proof on concept",,, I don't get it.
What we have seen on the screen is a revenge story set in the Special ops world.
This concept has been done thousands of time before on TV or in movies by Tom Clancy,
Robert Ludlum
and Lee Child.
What is there to prove here?
Was it to prove that his books could be adapted for TV or movies?
Perhaps they could, but what we learned while watching this short movie, is that Will Jordan AKA The critical drinker cannot write for TV or movies.
There is a huge difference between a screen writer and an author as we can see after watching this project.
Maybe it was to prove that the team hired to produce this movie was up to the task?
We also got an answer after that.
Of course not.
Some will say that the budget of 300 thousand dollars was very small but, I beg to differ.
Nothing was forcing them to make a 42 minutes long movie.
In the original plan, the movie was set to be a 20 minutes long.
but, plans changed after receiving triple what the funding campaigned was asking for and instead of putting the extra money on the quality of what was going to be put on screen, they decided to extend the run time.
What was put on screen could have been shot with a few Go pros and some DJI cameras. At no point were RED cameras and their powerful lens felt used in an original manner.
The only reason I know they used proper camera equipment was because of the interior filming in poor light conditions.
A drone and a Jig would also have been useful.
I really wanted this short movie to work out as I think it's time to see something new on TV, something original, but this is not it.
Let's face it, The Drinker is probably going to have to sell the rights to his books getting a consultant credit for his troubles.
Shocking.
Now go watch the new show "The Agency" look at what they did with a minimum of words.
Way to go 👍🙂
This was a solid breakdown. Overall, I'm a big fan of Critical Drinker. While I understand that this was only a concept, and the budget wasn't big, I was still expecting something much more competent than this perplexing dud. In too many ways it mimicked what Drinker has been criticizing in mainstream Hollywood productions.
I haven't read his books, so I don't know if there was a disconnect between the source material and the script. As a writer myself, I hope this was a case of a poor adaptation.
Maybe my expectations were too high? Sorry Drinker, if you're known for your insightful, critical reviews, then you'd better be prepared to bring an A-game to anything you write/produce. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The acting, dialogue, and editing all needed to be tightened up.
Drinker is obviously a grifter; he's just some guy who got popular with the Disney Star Wars movies reviews and banked on making that kind of slam dunk low effort videos; not even being willing to go balls deep with his dissections of the politics of movies (there's way better and more intelligent creators who dive into stuff like that). Dude has zero nuance, artistic comprehension or original creative voice. Critics (not that his criticism isn't surface level and basic, same as his writing apparently) that think their criticism will make them good creators have it backwards, if their drive to create was strong they would've done that first, not the other way around.
you are a pathetic excuse for a shill
@@yosaru Someone who knows FA about movies but has realised its an easy money maker..
Hes tried and tried to get famous over the years by ANY means possible
Hes been exposed so many times for knowing NOTHING about movies! he also changes to titles when his over the top predictions dont come to fruition.
Watch RE In all its glory and youll see just how talented he REALLY is..