SW Airlines “Goldfish”
- click here for iPod version -
- click here for YouTube version -
Southwest Airlines “Goldfish” 2006
Spec Commercial
Format: 24p DV
TRT: :30
Size: 13.6MB
–
THE STORY
Kristine tells a great story from her childhood detailing how she broke news to a friend regarding the bait and switch said friend’s parents pulled after the death of a pet goldfish. This is a common story we frequently share a goof about, and I thought it would make a great SPEC commercial.
DOWNLOAD
- The Treatment (.pdf)
- The Script (.pdf)
- The Storyboards (.pdf) Notice how the storyboards were altered from the original treatment and script. This was done mainly because of time constraints at our location.
PRODUCTION INFO
casting, location scouting, and production photos
This spot took about 3 hours to shoot and only about 4 hours in post. I attribute most of the production and post-production fluidity to the additional 3 hours I spent storyboarding. If you downloaded the storyboard.pdf you’ll notice that I actually over storyboarded to a large extent. Overstoryboarding was a blessing and a curse - saved my ass in spots as a “director” - made it a pain in the ass as “editor”.
All editing took place in FCP (including the cursor animation), and I busted the track out of Garage Band (no kidding, I actually created a few tracks for SportsHD in Garage Band which actually went to air on iNHD).
This is also the first time I’ve color corrected the entire spot twice - once for broadcast spec and once again for web distribution (and compression). Generally, I lightened and increased the saturation A TON to get the web compressed spots to match up to what will wind up on DVD.
CREDITS
- Morgan Stewart goldfish owner
- Jeanne Hosack messenger
- Kelley Marchant mother
- Robert Herring father
- Ryan Soos voice over
- Josh Oakhurst director
- The Fabulous Kristine writer, producer
- Laura Moya casting director
- Jerry Makare gaffer, grip, & lighting
- Jeff Klein voice over tech
Damn good job, man! I need to get MY butt in gear, thanks for the kick.
Pat
Comment on August 7, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
great idea, looks good but I’d cut it a lot less. Too many of the cuts, especially in the beginning, feel like they’re there just for the sake of cutting, and they draw attention away from the scene to the editing itself. Slow things down before the parents come in so that their sense of panic ups the pace overall - the kids aren’t in a hurry to get away, just the parents.
Comment on August 8, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
Haha, nice storyboards… And thanks for making them available. It’s nice to see how other folks draw them up.
Comment on August 8, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
I liked it.
You’ve inspired me to do something similar. A spec commercial I mean.
Thanks again Josh.
Comment on August 9, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
Evan-
The real editing on this spot reflected what I chose not to show, or rather, the shots I chose not to use. I understand what you’re saying about the pace in reflection of the panic - but really what you’re suggesting is way too theory based for this production - (and ultimately less appealing in my eyes).
Also remember too that for this spot - I’m also the client. I’m trying to pimp my talents as much as tell a story. For any client / producer sitting in the screening room, I would have (and did actually cut) four more slightly different versions of this spot.
So in a sense, if you’re saying that for your taste, “I should have followed the rules a bit more,” well, I hope it’s obvious that yes, I CAN MAKE CORRECTIONS TO IT how the client desires.
BUT, since I’m reppn’ myself here, I thought it was more important to show some latitude, rather that show-off what anyone could read out of an Editing-101 book.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that stuff in Editing-101 is wrong, just that I think it’s pretty obvious throughout all of my work that I know how to edit. In the end, if this were a real gig, I’d be hired for technical and artistic skills, and for this particular spot I wanted to be as daring as I could. I feel it’s my job many times to push boundaries for the client - take ‘em to the edge of what they really wanted, what they’ve expressed to me - and then allow them to reel me back in if what I’ve done is a bit unsettling.
Because again, it’s easy to come back from outside the box. Anyone can make theory based cuts.
–
Oh yeah. And of the five versions I cut (some faster, some slower), this just happened to be the one I liked the best.
–
Keep writing - thanks brother.
Comment on August 10, 2006 @ 8:32 am
I understand where you’re coming from, but my comment was not intended to analyze your editing from a fundamentals or rules standpoint. It basically comes down to my immediate reaction to the first half of the commercial - I feel as if my eyes are being jerked around the screen, with little chance to settle on anything. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing in all cases, it just seems entirely inappropriate to the content of the commercial, at least until the parents panic. Of course that’s just my reaction - but remember that I didn’t write, storyboard, shoot, edit, and finish this commercial. Only you did. You know what’s coming next before it happens, know what to expect, know where to look. Your audience doesn’t. I don’t.
If you really are the client, I’d say fine - whatever you like best is the way it should be. But I’m assuming this is something you plan to show to other people as a sample of your work - that means the real client is your audience. That’s the perspective I’m coming from.
You’re right - your other work shows you know how to edit. I’d say this commercial doesn’t - at least from the perspective of making a cohesive, polished piece. If you really wanted to be daring with this piece then you should have been more daring with the story, with the shoot, with the action, essentially with the rest of the production. Then the faster editing might have been appropriate. Now you’ve got straightforward action which is composed and shot fairly traditionally - in fact I’d say your editing is in fact pretty traditional, just not paced well. It’s not outside the box, it’s not daring, it’s just awkward. It doesn’t need theory-based cuts, it needs cuts that fit the rest of the content. Something like ‘Dream Chasers’ shows off your editing chops nicely - this commercial seems more like a ‘total package’ production example, and the editing distracts from the rest rather than bringing it all together.
But that’s just my take on it, and I’m just some random guy looking for reasons to procrastinate a little longer rather than get back to my own work. So don’t mind me - I’m not looking to start an editing debate, just sharing my perspective…
Comment on August 14, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
Evan-
All good points Evan. I appreciate the feedback. Please don’t hesitate to write.
Comment on August 15, 2006 @ 8:22 am
[...] So what’s interesting about this? THE OBVIOUS: How weird is it that a company I already produced a SPEC AD for launched a contest calling for SPEC AD production? No doubt, the “wanna get away” tagline is very recognizable and offers up inviting creative territory. However, it’s not hard to believe that a simple YouTube query birthed this contest idea rather than it coming from the result of mediated corporate brainstorming. Additionally, the new vanity trend on the InterWeb may no longer be self-Googling (don’t sue me), but rather seems to have shifted into self-YouTubing (anyone have a better verb?). As evidence, I point to this message sent to me via YouTube from the Marketing Manager of THULE: [...]
Pingback on December 24, 2006 @ 5:26 am