kb58 said:Watched it and... frankly, the best part was the first couple's self-interview.
Yeah, I started watching it too and it didn't really hold me. They lost me when they filmed the planning meeting.... I've been to race planning meetings before. Definitely not something I'd consider interesting enough to dedicate any film to.
In reply to BA5 :
When filming a documentary about a form of motorsports that are held on public roadsthat are temporarily closed, in the lower 48, planning and showcasing the planning is relevant. It's such an incredible outlier and is really strange and ridiculous in the world and climate of the United States to close a road for motorsport. The zoning approval, The backing of local government and chamber of commerce, insurance, the number of volunteers to control intersections and provide emergency response and communication. It may not be exciting, but it's absolutely relevant.
It takes an army of volunteers and that army isn't getting any younger. I have a friend who hill climbs, they autocross in four different SCCA regions, and they don't even really enjoy autocrossing that much anymore. The reason they do it is because if they can attract 10 people from each autocross region to come volunteer at a hill climb each year, it helps the events remain sustainable.
In a documentary format, showing some of the planning preparation and roles that it takes to put on an event may give somebody who has an interest in hillclimb, but doesn't have the ability to compete, a sense of direction in becoming involved in another way.
In stage rally there is what is called the 2 to 1 guideline, which is on average it takes two volunteers for every team entered in a rally. (And that's for the event and doesn't include team service crews).
Once you get past autocross and rallycross you need as many volunteers for most forms of motorsport as you do drivers otherwise it simply won't work.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to BA5 :
When filming a documentary about a form of motorsports that are held on public roadsthat are temporarily closed, in the lower 48, planning and showcasing the planning is relevant. It's such an incredible outlier and is really strange and ridiculous in the world and climate of the United States to close a road for motorsport. The zoning approval, The backing of local government and chamber of commerce, insurance, the number of volunteers to control intersections and provide emergency response and communication. It may not be exciting, but it's absolutely relevant.
It takes an army of volunteers and that army isn't getting any younger. I have a friend who hill climbs, they autocross in four different SCCA regions, and they don't even really enjoy autocrossing that much anymore. The reason they do it is because if they can attract 10 people from each autocross region to come volunteer at a hill climb each year, it helps the events remain sustainable.
In a documentary format, showing some of the planning preparation and roles that it takes to put on an event may give somebody who has an interest in hillclimb, but doesn't have the ability to compete, a sense of direction in becoming involved in another way.
In stage rally there is what is called the 2 to 1 guideline, which is on average it takes two volunteers for every team entered in a rally. (And that's for the event and doesn't include team service crews).
Once you get past autocross and rallycross you need as many volunteers for most forms of motorsport as you do drivers otherwise it simply won't work.
All of that is 100% true, but it doesn't make the nuts and bolts of the process a compelling watch.
I found it OK. Biggest issue was the sound quality. It was very inconsistent, some folks were very loud and audible, some folks I couldn't hear at all. Considering that 80% of the film was interviews, this was an issue, IMO.
Agree on the sound levels. It's odd that didn't jump out at the editors.
I held off on giving the film/digital makers too much grief; I mean, would I be able to do any better? The reason for my self-questioning is that, well, the underlying theme of the film seemed to be, "okay everyone, I want you to act silly and say funny things - go!"
To be honest, I couldn't finish it; it was like watching a junior high school production. I think that a car documentary works best when there's a narrator reading a well-thought out script that explains what we're seeing and its history, while playing video of the cars - parked, being worked on, and especially, heading up the hill. Interspersed with that should be short interviews. Instead they sort of did it in reverse, having the participants trying to explain it, which resulted in sometimes awkward and disjointed segments. Showing the cars actually running seemed religated to least importance, while it should have been center stage.
That said, Amazon thought it was worthwhile, and I'm no film maker, so I'll sit down.
Back in the late 70s to late 80s my father and I ran a 72 Toyota Corolla 1600cc in what is now the SCCA GT classes. Full race motor and suspension. Full cage. Have some in car video. Fun times at all the hills with PHA Hillclimb Association. Hills are fun if you keep it on the road. Giants was always a challenge to drive because of the road conditions. Off camber turns and the incline after the 2nd turn.
corolla2tcte27 said:Back in the late 70s to late 80s my father and I ran a 72 Toyota Corolla 1600cc in what is now the SCCA GT classes. Full race motor and suspension. Full cage. Have some in car video. Fun times at all the hills with PHA Hillclimb Association. Hills are fun if you keep it on the road. Giants was always a challenge to drive because of the road conditions. Off camber turns and the incline after the 2nd turn.
I'm guessing this is the Ford family. Their Toyota was always a treat to watch and listen to. Faster than you would ever think a 1600cc Toyota would or could go.
In reply to lotusseven7 (Forum Supporter) :
Yes, Alvey and me, Wayne. It was a fun car to drive.
You'll need to log in to post.
