Sound off over on our Facebook page.

1) Limit your effects shots. Maybe you need a nice establishing shot of a location that’s impossible to shoot. Great! A VFX artist can build that. But if that kind of work has to go into every shot, your movie just went from low-budget to big-budget.

2) Utilize simple-but-just-as-effective tricks of the trade that don’t cost as much — clever sound design, for example. Sometimes the basic tools can even help you tell a better story.

3) And although it’s one you’ve heard before — DON’T plan to “fix it in post!” On small indie projects, this often means whatever is trying to be achieved hasn’t been thought the whole way through. Try to do it in production. If it’s impossible in production or still needs that extra something to help it along, have a plan for post or consult with post-production experts (we might know a few…) BEFORE cameras and actors and crews are brought in. This will prevent headaches and will very likely get you a better end result.

Good luck! In the end, there can be only one…. Actually, that’s Highlander. But you know what we mean.

Aside from entertainment purposes, could this gadgetry be used in other ways? There’s the initial shock value, but is there something useful that could be taken away from the technology?

When does reappropriating someone’s image once they’re gone go too far? Does the idea of Marilyn Monroe selling pantyhose make you shudder or feel nostalgic? At what point does the notion of honoring the memory of a beloved figure cross the line into cheap or offensive and distort our lasting memory of him or her?

With the minutiae of our lives being recorded into oblivion, does this make you think twice about what you think you’ll leave behind? What would you want your lasting image to look like/do?

Share your thoughts by dropping us a note over on our Facebook Timeline. We also accept holograms.

How are media consumption platforms (TVs, laptops, iPhone, iPads, etc.) influencing the content that is created for them?

Will we get to a point where everyone is up-to-date on the latest technology because they’ve never been without it (i.e. kids being born today), or will there continue to be huge technological leaps that leave some of us behind?

Are certain audiences more receptive to new technologies (sci-fi fans vs. soap opera fans), and could a specific audience’s savviness inspire the use of other medias to continue or expand a story?

Tell us how you think you’ll adapt to changing technology, or how you already have!

That brought up a bigger idea at play — how does a very male character make the transition to female, and how do the fans react? Do showrunners address the hero’s sexuality? How is it different from situations where male characters are turned female before shooting begins?

M: Whew, it’s nice to finally be outta that closet, er, phone box. So yep, this was an exciting rumor to read. I had 3 rapid-fire responses: 1) Dread. I hate when the Doctor Who character changes. I know how ridiculous that is, since it’s inevitable. I just grow so accustomed to the current Doctor that I throw a mini tantrum whenever a new one comes aboard, despite the fact that I’ve loved every single one. 2) Excitement. What an awesome heroine this could be, unlike any I’ve seen in a while, and what a unique way to explore an already fascinating character. Then I wondered what on earth they’d do with her companion. Would they still try and keep the sexual tension going and, if so, would it be with a male companion or, gasp, a female one? How would viewers respond to this dramatic change, and would all of the Doctor’s affectionate quirks translate well to a female actress?

Ultimately, I don’t think much would change. To be sure, thousands of tweens who go gaga over the male Doctor might be heartbroken, but surely they can respond just as strongly to the companion if he’s male. And wouldn’t such an assertive and competent female role model more than make up for those fans? I think the show has set itself up well in that it already has a large pool of strong, smart female characters integral to the stories, so it seems like it wouldn’t be much of a stretch and a natural evolution of the character arc for the character. When I think of the things I love about the Doctor, they’re all traits that would still hold up and be just as appealing for me with a female voice. And, oh my god, wouldn’t it be awesome to have Captain Jack return to the show for added romantic tension?

So, yeah, I’m all for it. And the beauty of it is that if it doesn’t work out, the character can always regenerate into a new body. I can’t think of any other show where this idea could even be entertained.

L: I agree, although the TARDIS is bigger on the inside…. You have to keep things fresh when you have a story that is essentially never-ending; this would be an awesome way to shake up the usual regeneration (that is, if anything is “the usual” in the Whoverse).

To broaden things up for those who may not be avid Who watchers, the relationship of a hero and his or her sidekick or co-hero has got to be such a tricky thing to juggle. Heaps of shows play the sexual tension card (Castle, The X-Files, Fringe, etc.), while others are propelled by friendships or being siblings (Supernatural, Xena, Hercules, etc.). Are we, as viewers and human beings with dirty thoughts, somehow inclined to want two strong leads to get together, no matter what? What’s a good balance? And of course, all of this relationship hullabaloo has to be weaved masterfully into a strong, driving, bigger-than-a-relationship plot — what a wonderful challenge!

M: Right, you need characters who are different, but whose differences are complementary. And in a romantic type of situation, we have to feel that the two deserve one another. So you can’t have such a huge discrepancy between the characters strengths, and they have to be able to support the other in their weaknesses.

When a woman takes on the role of the leader in a relationship (and in the case of the Doctor, there’s really no question who the brains of the operation are), where does that leave the male sidekick? The stereotype is of the emasculated man who stumbles alongside the pushy female. In the past, when there’s been a clear woman in charge, shows have opted to have the male sidekicks be goofy, lovesick tag-alongs against the female kick-ass protagonist. I have my guesses as to why, but it seems it’s more difficult to have the woman be the one initiating action and still have the male be worthy of her, than it is the reverse. I just don’t see it often, with the exception of those shows that follow the X-Files model that you mentioned. Would be awesome to have a dude’s take on this, as well as whether they’d be for or against a character like the Doctor being gender reassigned.

L: Yeah! I’d be curious to hear our guy readers’ perspectives on this, too.

Anyway, that’s all the time we have for this week, folks. Remember — if you have an opinion, please share it over on our Twitch Facebook Page. Or! If you’ve got a topic you’d like to hear us take sides on, suggest it by writing on our Facebook Timeline. Allons-y! Geronimo!

Made me think of you since not only do we both greatly enjoy food cameos in all things media-related, but you have been known to tweet about your own foodie conquests. What IS it about seeing food on television, pics and in movies that makes us so drawn to those depictions?

For my part, scenes where actors are mumbling around mouthfuls and digging into plates of spaghetti are usually the ones I remember best, regardless of whether they’re actually necessary. But more than just eye candy, I think they can be very useful in showing us what our characters are thinking/feeling, rather than telling. Your thoughts? (I bet you’re hungry right now just reading this.)

LC: Guilty as charged on all accounts. And yes, I have seen that video! My micro-blogging of food is more about the documentation of a special experience than the food itself, especially when I travel. Plus, food’s a great subject for photographers! So many textures and colors.

Food is one of those universal things that everyone has experience with, so even if the biggest baddie on the planet with all his super powers and mutations and whatnot gets a little hungry and stops to grab a burger, we get it. Some actors are even known for it.

That being said, I tend to not react as strongly to food when it’s being forced at me like in commercials. Is it because it looks fake? Because we know that happy family was paid a day rate to smile about those chips… whereas if it’s naturally in a narrative, we’re already sucked into the story and the food bits come across subliminally? Ah, the ultimate product placement.

MS: Ha, that vid’s awesome; you think he’s got it in his contract that he has to eat something for every role he gets? And yeah, maybe you and I are a bit cynical when it comes to commercial food adverts. Have you see those goofy “women smiling with salads” stock pics? They’re beyond unrealistic — who gets that excited ’bout a salad? Regardless, product placement obviously works but when it’s not a factor, actors still turn to that roast beef sammy, albeit for very different reasons. The bag of chips becomes a prop, perhaps it’s a lazy crutch, or very apropo to the scene. It can give us an added layer to that character (think Sally’s uptight ordering preferences in When Harry Met Sally) or define a scene in such a way that talking or alluding to what’s going on just doesn’t cut the mustard — I’m thinking of that infamous Brando “butter scene” in Last Tango in Paris or, of course, the meatball scene in Lady and the Tramp. With the latter, no words needed, the simple act of nurturing in this very basic way is as powerful a depiction of love and affection as anything.

Well, that worked up my appetite. How’s about we grab a slice?

LC: The only reference of those that I actually know is Lady and the Tramp, but I’ll trust ya! And yes, grabbing a slice sounds delightful.

Remember, folks — if YOU would like to chime in, please speak up over on our Twitch Facebook Page. Or! If you’ve got a topic you’d like to hear us take sides on, suggest it by writing on our Facebook Timeline. Ciao for now, and mangia!

Our topic this week is the difference between practical effects and fancy computer-generated graphics and how each affects an audience on an emotional level. My preference has always been practical effects, but I think CGI, when used wisely, can really help a story and be quite groundbreaking in some cases.

But instead of just reading my rambling, we’re giving you two opinions for the price of one (FREE.99). Please allow me to introduce Twitch’s kick-butt office manager, Maria! M, what’s your take?

M: Hey Lauren, I love your ramblin’! But thanks for asking. When thinking about the movies and shows that I’m fond of, I find myself really gravitating toward the tangible effects that I can actually see and imagine feeling. Yeah, it can come off pretty campy at times (which, in itself is sometimes the appeal), but I’d rather have a wobbly set piece or awkward mask that has texture and that the actors are actually interacting with, than a glossy computer image on a green screen, provided of course that everything else is solid (story, acting, etc.).

Hmm, CGI used wisely? I need examples. In non-animated movies it all just ends up looking cartoony to me and is a distraction from the story. I just end up thinking, “God, that dragon and legion of muscly soldiers look soooo fake and must’ve cost a fortune.” So, why not just watch a Pixar film instead?

L: Totally fair, and I couldn’t agree more! But I think there are moments that couldn’t exist without CGI. Think about Gollum in LotR — a character with a physical body so compact that a human body wouldn’t fit inside a costume. Or Jurassic Park — in this clip, the scale of the flock would be exceptionally hard to do practically, and even though the T-Rex is the product of a computer in this scene, it’s backed up with an incredible animatronic robot later in the film. It’s in the merger of the two technologies that I’d like to think the movie magic happens. Here’s a great snippet on ILM and how CGI can be used to tell stories we couldn’t tell before.

On the flip side, I think CGI is resorted to too quickly these days. It’s a noncommittal way to say, “we’ll fix it in post.” That’s the kind of computer-generated stuff I can’t get behind. I especially appreciate the use of practical effects in TV shows, who have even less time and money than big budget movies.

M: Alright missy, you make good points. Jurassic Park would not be the movie it is without a combination of graphics and robotics, particularly in terms of showing sheer scale and numbers. I’m impressed with how both were used in concert so seamlessly in that film. At no point did I feel like the effects took anything away from the story; they only served to enhance it in a way that I’m not sure would’ve worked as well on a smaller scale. That balance of practical and CGI has got to be such a tricky line to tow if you have access to both technologies. I wonder how a movie like Jaws would fare if it was remade today. Would a more streamlined, agile, computerized shark make a bigger splash, or is there something so primal and frightening in only seeing the mechanical beast’s iconic grin extremely close up, never getting a clear view of its full form? But with Jurassic Park as a template, perhaps a combination of effects would create as good if not a better creature. My biggest qualm really is that all too often it seems like filmmakers create scenes so as to justify the cost of using fancy technology, which ends up in all this excessive footage that adds nothing to the movie. I hate “baggy” movies! Trim the fat! So, I echo your sentiment that simply because the technology and resources are available, doesn’t mean they ought to be used. Of course, the upside of using computer-generated effects over practical machines is that you’re not left lugging a 400-pound, life-sized shark model into the dumpster.

L: Well, I happen to think lugging a 400-pound shark around might be one heck of a good time. Imagine the photo ops! I think what we’re getting at is that we like when we feel a sense of, “How did they DO that?!” when we watch a movie or a TV show, and that feeling comes from that tricky recipe of killer storytelling and convincing magic tricks — be it makeup, animatronics, or CGI. I wonder if we’re less impacted by CGI because we use computers everyday and just assume that, “Oh, well, a computer made that shot.” Most of us don’t paint foam rubber or rig hydraulics on a daily basis, and I think that might be part of practical effects’ mystique that has stood the test of time.

It’s a well-debated topic and there’s no right or wrong opinion; if YOU would like to chime in, please speak up over on our Twitch Facebook Page. If you’ve got a topic you’d like to hear us take sides on, suggest away, dear readers! We’ll see you next week — same time, same place.

A long time ago, it was acceptable to just be able to cut in, say, Avid, but times have changed in the world of post-production for independent filmmaking. New editors might not expect that they’ll need to meet all sorts of client demands: from jumping between being designers AND editors to hopping from one software platform to another.

There are two paths you can take — 1) become so great at one thing that everybody wants to hire you for that one particular talent (i.e. After Effects designer) or 2) become a Jack or Jill of All Trades and be good in lots of different areas (cut on Final Cut AND Avid, be able to do fancy titles or rotoscoping…) so that a client hires superhuman you instead of a whole team.

No matter how technology changes, it all comes down to honing your craft; we merely have more technology these days to help us turn our written stories into moving pictures, and we think that’s pretty cool.

Have you dreamt of going to the Oscars with a film of your own? Have a script? Persona Non Grata might have $250,000 for you to direct it.