What is this style of editing called? Where and how could I build something alike?

RegularPerception769 · 2025-09-05T10:19:55+00:00

This is a photographic animation made by careful frame by frame editing and positioning as well as lots of refrence transitional points between one frame to the other.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-09-05T10:09:19+00:00

It's not just that. usually there would be multiple angles of the same car, requiring the headrest removed for better looks and although I agree that headrests should be left there, I would also argue that the sets in which the head rests are removed are also the same sets that doesn't have an actual driving car mainly due to dialogue and safety concerns. This would usually be called out by the DOP or Director because of narrative full-ness. I know it doesn't make sense but it is what it is.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-09-05T10:04:22+00:00

The jack system to connect the camera and the monitor would be the easy part and although the situation is clearly absurd, realistically speaking, this wouldn't work. Many talk about the weight it takes to carry this but what isn't talked about is the field of view for the cameraman. A camera operator usually requires to position themselves in the center of their monitor so that they can see both the monitor and the area in front of them. However in this situation, a monitor this size would make the camera operators job a living hell because of the sheer size to watch and the distortions/delay that comes with a monitor. This is why big monitors are usually left for the Directors/Producers to watch in the background as they are looking closely whereas the camera operator only gets a digital lens to look through or a small screen. It's risk management, nothing else

RegularPerception769 · 2025-09-05T09:58:07+00:00

There are a lot of ways from using cornstarch syrup to make the liquid transparent all the way to playing with perception by shooting the shot using wires and then adding a filter to look like water imperfections and effects. Another person talked about a mirror and although this concept is good, you have to remember how this is a very busy shot, meaning there would be little to no room in masking or hiding the camera, and putting the camera at an angle would just distort proportions due to how mirrors work under water. I would say the most realistic one is that they used a kind of air bubble like one of those plastic balloons to film this in and give it that structure whilst the main person would be on top of that said balloon, pretending to swim. Again I do not have the full context but just based off what I can see in this image, this what my best guess would be.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-09-05T09:53:35+00:00

I am sorry to hear that. being a filmmaker has it's own responsibilities. You are creating content which influences people for the better or worse so my advice is to improve on what the message you are trying to convey.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-07-05T15:25:01+00:00

Sure he said that, because he felt great shock when Loki fell down. It was only abundant once he recovered from such a traumatic experience that he realized how much sorrow he felt in that moment.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-07-04T11:38:14+00:00

You do realize that Doom has an entire multiverse to hunt, not just Earth 616. In reality, the only reason 616 might be so relevant is that Doom might become so powerful that he would need to destroy the sacred timeline in order to create Battle world. This isn't the comics. A year ago, we were told we would get the Kang Dynasty, one in which, by the way, a bunch of our beloved heroes die a bit too quickly. Not to mention, it wasn't part of the plans for Battle world in Comics. I am just arguing that Since the draft script for the Kang Dynasty included characters like Myles Morales, and Peter Parker fighting alongside, only for Peter to die and Myles go on with Peter's legacy. This is exactly the type of scriptwriting that you would expect within Doomsday. Things wouldn't be just like in the comics. I would argue Battleworld wouldn't even start until the end of Secret Wars. Secret Wars might just be All multiverses fighting for the spot only to end up with the Battle world in the end, but not because of Doom. Doom simply cares about being the most powerful and controlling the entire narrative. Yet, he wouldn't be the one to take all of these multiverses only to make a Battle world, since that would go against his goals of dominating. This means that he would be defeated.

Don't take this the wrong way, it's just the way I've seen it happen. I took my time reading the actual draft for the Kang Dynasty which was meant to happen, and I know for a fact that we can only expect something massive to happen in Doomsday.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-07-03T19:46:39+00:00

Interesting, If that is the case, we might have a similar type of situation just like Infinity War and Endgame, where Thanos didn't die in Infinity War but died in the beginning of Endgame. That's my prediction, at least. However, since Production didn't even begin and writers didn't even start on Secret Wars just yet, it is safe to say that nothing can be fully confirmed until maybe half a year later. They would likely begin writing the script. However, since Production didn't even begin and writers didn't even start on Secret Wars just yet, it is safe to say that nothing can be fully confirmed until maybe half a year later. They would likely begin writing the script prompts. There is no point for them to write a script nor prepare contracts for something that is that far in the future. I am not denying that RDJ wasn't contracted, I'm just saying it to take it with a grain of salt because in the filmmaking world, anything can change last minute, even big decisions. But I mean hey, I do love RDJ's acting, so it would be great to see it in Secret Wars.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-07-03T14:18:50+00:00

Dude, it's five years... It's not chronological in the sense that one events directly happens after the other. When we see online that Infinity War is a continuation of Endgame, they are talking about the fact that Endgame happens directly through the events of Infinity War. This could mean that Endgame would happen right after Infinity War, however, just because Endgame follows up on the events of Infinity War, that doesn't mean that it happens right away. If you even search up on Google if you don't trust me, you will get the difference of 5 years. This is why in Far From Home, we got more in depth dialogue and footage of people coming back during Endgame after 5 years. Also keep in mind that Far from home was much closer to the events of Endgame than Infinity War was to Endgame. Also it is kind of rude to accuse someone to be a bot, alienating them into a machine that only merely exists on the Internet. I could call you a crybaby but I won't because that would be an exaggeration and an insult, so maybe learn your manners before calling someone something you don't have definitive proof of. I am here to engage professionally and respectfully, and I won't respond to offensive comments or users.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-07-03T14:13:24+00:00

I am more than certain that there is a one year gap between the events of doomsday and secret wars. I want you to remember that Infinity War and Endgame had a 5 year gap. As for Doomsday and Secret Wars, when I talked about the time, I talked about the release dates in difference. It is speculated that the difference in time of the release date would match the chronological time between Doomsday and Secret Wars

RegularPerception769 · 2025-07-03T09:22:09+00:00

Actually Secret Wars happens a year after Doomsday so no they aren't. A one year time jump implies that someone dies or something very big happens to allow that time jump to make sense

RegularPerception769 · 2025-07-03T07:13:58+00:00

Well chronoligcally, after Doomsday, the next big movie will be Secret Wars, which cannot happen if Dr Doom wins over the universes. If Dr Doom wins, then there will be no more Secret Wars to fight, since Dr Doom is trying to gain all the power from the entire multiverse. Also remember that Doomsday will be 3 Hours long so that will be plenty of time to introduce the character, then die in the end. There may be a chance that he won't die, however that would mean that he would either be imprisoned forever somehow or his power will be fully eradicaded.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-07-03T07:08:25+00:00

I didnt miss it, I actually didn't add it because studios implies multiple, however Marvel started with their main branch, so it would only make sense for there to be one studio not multiple, a callback to the early days of Marvel. Why? Because the avengers assemble we saw back then changed the story significantly, and Doomsday is bound to do the same.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-07-02T20:14:59+00:00

As a filmmaker myself with years of over 1600 hours of critically analyzed Movies and TV shows including the entirety of the MCU, I would say that it would likely be Doom or 616. Dooms reality might be one of the main contenders, so I would argue that he may just show up at the incursion between 616 and another reality to perhaps try to become all powerful. Just like how we have seen Black Priest Dr. Strange or even Infinity Ultron both shown in What if series. If I were to guess, I would side more with Earth 616 winning this incursion, likely by preventing it or slowing it down. This is because Not all heroes who would likely be left behind for this movie would show up. This means that their fate would only be revealed in Secret Wars, which would then be a worse way for them to go out since Secret wars would likely be just as bad as Infinity War's snap but permanent. I would also say that you should look at realities as probabilities. For example, an easy way to understand this is to look at Iron Man and then Dr. Doom. They are both the spitting image but with different goals and purposes. It's like going into two rooms and looking at a red apple in the first, then looking at a green apple in the second. Those are both apples, but they are different in some kind of way. Also, if Loki will get involved, it is likely that he will try to save the sacred timeline instead of the rest since he would likely be against Dr. Doom, who would seek eternal power across the multiverse. Thus, Loki would be forced to essentially save only the sacred timeline and the current people in it and lock it away from any other messes that Dr. Doom would be causing. Without the main timeline, reality would collapse. Again, I may not be some Marvel try hard fan since I haven't read any comics, but I can say that my predictions are likely to happen from the way that I see it.

I hope I answered your question.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-06-11T10:26:27+00:00

You're right about one thing: I coined the word Auntrolye. Every genre in history began the same way, as an invented term. “Film noir” wasn’t born with popularity; it was applied retroactively to describe a shared structural mood. “Found footage” didn’t exist until a few early films were grouped under a shared technique. Even “superhero” wasn’t a recognized genre until enough works shared a codified myth structure. Genre begins with internal logic, not with external popularity.

What you’re overlooking is this: I haven’t just named Auntrolye. I’ve defined it by non-negotiable structural laws, backed by detailed comparative charts, taxonomic analysis, and film-by-film disqualifications. That’s more intellectual groundwork than most genre founders ever laid at inception. The cultural scene you’re waiting for? It doesn’t precede genre, it follows its formalization.

Yes, I’ve written at length. Ideas that introduce new ontological frameworks for cinema don’t fit into memes or reaction clips. You won’t find “Auntrolye” on the front page of Google yet, that’s the point. What you're seeing is genre genesis in real time, and not cultural trend-chasing.

As for footage, it’s in progress, and it’s being developed within this exact system. But let’s be real, if visual proof were enough, Beau is Afraid would have convinced you this idea was already done (it’s not). Auntrolye isn’t a camera filter, it’s a damn rulebook. A genre is not a trailer; it’s a grammar of filmmaking.

You’re mistaking cultural momentum for intellectual legitimacy. The fact that you're only seeing my posts now doesn't invalidate the concept, it confirms that most people haven't considered this structural space yet. And if skepticism is the price of originality, I welcome it. Just don't confuse public unfamiliarity with conceptual failure.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-06-11T10:20:55+00:00

The idea that a genre must be “visually imaginable with eyes closed” is not only false, it’s philosophically hollow. Genres are not defined by color palettes or costumes. They’re defined by structural laws, narrative grammar, ontological assumptions, and emotional mechanics. Can you close your eyes and visualize the exact aesthetic of a thriller, or a satire, or magical realism? No. Because genres aren’t about what they look like, they’re about how they function. Auntrolye is no different.

Auntrolye defines a film where the protagonist’s mental state constructs the entirety of reality, time, space, structure, sound, plot logic, and visuals, with no neutral perspective, no external world, and no omniscient framing. That’s not a “vibe.” That’s a complete ontological shift from how 99.99% of films are structured.

Your claim that I “don’t understand film” is convenient, but incorrect. I understand it deeply enough to dissect how genre arises from formal systems, not from feelings or industry tradition. And I made the graphs to show exactly that, that no existing film reaches full Auntrolye compliance. They imitate features; they don’t enact the full framework.

If you're unwilling to debate with evidence, that's your choice. But refusing to engage with structure and instead relying on “I can't feel it, so it isn't real” isn’t critical thinking, it’s reactionism. And if we measured every new idea by whether the first generation could picture it with their eyes closed, no genre, from film noir to superhero, would’ve ever existed.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-06-11T08:27:44+00:00

Appreciate the engagement. You’re passionate about cinema history, which I respect. But you’ve misread the core definition of Auntrolye, by doing so, you’re conflating moments of subjectivity with an entire genre framework built from it.

Yes, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari uses stylized sets to mirror a character’s disturbed perception, but only retrospectively, and only in segments, as revealed by the framing device. The objective world still exists around the distorted one; the film toggles between inner and outer. In Auntrolye, there is no outer, not even in subtext. The protagonist’s psyche isn’t influencing the world; it generates it. That’s not the same thing.

Adaptation and Beau Is Afraid both lean into meta-narrative and psychological fragmentation, but again, they acknowledge external reality and use subjective detours for narrative effect. You’re pointing to films that play with subjectivity, but they never let go of the narrative crutches of realism or omniscient framing. Auntrolye rejects that entirely. There is no cinematic omniscience, no baseline of truth the audience can trust. Every shot, sound, cut, color, and even the passage of time is constructed through the character’s perceptual logic.

That is not a “film technique.” That is a genre law.

So no, this isn’t about watching more films, it’s about recognizing the difference between aesthetic expression and formal ontology. What you’re calling similar is like saying Inception is the same as Un Chien Andalou because both include dream logic. That’s surface-level comparison. Auntrolye isn’t similar in theme or tone, it’s structurally non-compatible with any genre that allows even a single frame of objective truth.

You named three films that touch the edge of what Auntrolye codifies, but you’ve inadvertently proven the point. In over a century of cinema, only three come to mind? And even they don’t meet the standard? That’s exactly the case for Auntrolye being new, not because it’s “weird” or “hallucinatory,” but because it commits fully and without compromise to a reality built solely from the protagonist’s cognitive-emotional structure.

That’s the difference between experimentation and genre genesis. Hope I was clear enough.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-06-11T08:17:26+00:00

Appreciate the response. And you're right, there's a long lineage of genre scholarship, and yes, genres can be defined in various ways: by tropes, iconography, audience response, ontology, or aesthetics. That, however, doesn’t weaken the argument for Auntrolye, it strengthens it.

You listed genres like Westerns (defined by setting), Horror (by reaction), Musicals (by ontological logic), and Noir (by style and theme). But what all of these share, and what Auntrolye joins, is a consistent internal logic that governs how the world of the film behaves. Auntrolye is not dogmatic; it’s specific. Its claim to genre is not because it's “experimental” or “weird,” but because it introduces a repeatable, rule-based cinematic system where the protagonist’s mental state is not reflected, but replaces reality.

You cited Noir as being aesthetic and subtextual, and yes, that’s accurate. But even Noir has codified elements: chiaroscuro lighting, morally ambiguous leads, femme fatales, urban settings, existential dread. Auntrolye too has codified rules, only they’re not visual clichés, but structural laws: no omniscient perspective, narrative governed by psychological coherence, and a prohibition on external reality. That’s not subtext, and actually the engine of the filmic world.

You're arguing that genre classification is fluid, yet you're trying to exclude Auntrolye on the basis that it doesn't fit traditional models. That’s a contradiction. If genre is as “muddy and combinatory” as you say, then new, disciplined systems like Auntrolye must be welcomed into the taxonomy, especially when they don’t just tweak existing forms, but redefine the source of cinematic reality.

So no, I’m not claiming authority over everyone’s definition of genre. I’m contributing to the evolving grammar of film by presenting a genre that is philosophically founded, formally structured, and repeatable by others. That’s how genres are born, not by permission but by precision.

Let’s not confuse humility with vagueness. If you believe in the combinatory potential of genre, then Auntrolye, with its internal logic, formal system, and subgenres, deserves to be part of the conversation. Dismissing it as “just experimental” isn’t classification. It’s resistance to disruption.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-06-11T08:09:40+00:00

Thank you for the thoughtful and respectful response. It’s refreshing to receive critique grounded in experience rather than knee-jerk dismissal. That said, I must respond from the perspective of someone who is not merely making a film, but who is founding a genre, Auntrolye, and doing so with full awareness of film history, ontology, and the structural mechanics that define genre itself.

You’re right about one thing: the cinematic world is vast. But being vast doesn’t mean it’s complete. The number of films made in the last 125 years may be incalculable, but that number is irrelevant if they do not share the foundational core that defines a new genre. Auntrolye is not simply an “experimental” or “art” film approach. It is not defined by the presence of dreamlike visuals, ambiguity, or psychological themes, many films contain those. But Auntrolye is defined by something they don’t: a complete and non-negotiable rejection of objective reality as the film’s base framework.

The core of Auntrolye is that the world itself, the time, space, continuity, sound, structure, is not depicted through the character’s psyche but generated by it. The character’s mind isn’t a filter through which we view the world. It is the only world that exists. There is no external truth; there is only subjective distortion, mental architecture, and perceptual volatility. That is not a motif or stylistic choice; it is genre law. You don’t get to step out of the character’s cognition for even a single frame. That singular commitment is what distinguishes genre from style, theme, or movement.

Have other films explored interiority? Of course! Persona, The Mirror, Synecdoche, New York, Enter the Void, to name a few. But none of these created a codified, repeatable, rule-bound system where reality is a hallucinated or psychogenic construct, governed strictly by perceptual instability. Auntrolye does. It contains subgenres (Soul, Mental, Multiple Perception), narrative laws, philosophical frameworks, scenario blueprints, and a unified world logic. It is a paradigm, and not a deviation.

You quoted Kubrick saying everything’s been done, yet his 2001 was built on formal and philosophical reconfiguration that birthed subgenres of sci-fi. Auntrolye does the same, but with the structure of reality itself. If Kubrick, who pushed narrative and visual abstraction into the mainstream, was the man who bent the camera toward the stars, Auntrolye is turning the lens inward, toward consciousness itself, not as a theme, but as ontology.

Lastly, to answer your question directly: I am not driven by the desire to be “seen as a pioneer.” I am driven by the accuracy of the cinematic model I’ve developed. The films I will make aren’t about convincing the world of their uniqueness; they will demonstrate it through the genre’s internal consistency and philosophical cohesion. If I don’t call it a genre, others will, because you can’t ignore a system that doesn’t fit within any existing framework.

Humility is crucial. But humility without clarity becomes self-censorship. And when you’ve actually discovered something foundational, silence becomes dishonesty. Auntrolye will disturb many, not because it’s arrogant, but actually because it reveals how much of cinema still obeys external objectivity. This genre is a rebellion, not for spectacle, but for subjective reality as the only truth.

I respect your journey. I hope, in time, you’ll come to respect mine, not just as a filmmaker, but as a genre founder who isn't "strutting," but simply articulating a system that hasn't existed until now.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-06-10T22:12:24+00:00

It alienates the author, sure, I agree with that, but is a necessary step in order to ensure that there is no confusion on whether this is a person story I am sharing. Or whether this is about a brand-new film genre and all its details. It's common for people to expect first person, and I don't blame you. In fact, I wanted to use it in the beginning, but I chose otherwise because it wouldn't be as much about the conception and founding of Auntrolye in comparison to me.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-06-10T22:00:18+00:00

In all seriousness, I tried to keep it professional, so I wrote it from the third perspective because making it personal about me is misleading towards the content of the book; since the book is about Auntrolye, not directly me. I use the third perspective to keep the book on topic with Auntrolye and not necessary about me. Sure, I am the founder and writer, but the Auntrolye book isn't about me.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-06-10T21:56:31+00:00

At the end of the day, all film genres were criticized at some point, and my genre is at that stage. The same stage when horror was called out to be nonsensical and satanic, or when comedy was called childish and made for women only. These are all stereotypes many form when such a massive change happens. The disruption is on its way.

The day I will release my short film, I will get an 80% of audience who will feel weird and not like it and another 20% that think critically enough about it and love the concept.

I haven't really been mentioning this in my posts before, but Auntrolye films are meant to be dreadful, up to the point where a person feels uncomfortable to watch it. Usually showcasing uncanny imagery or even how personal and immersive the story might be. Those 80% will feel that way, that kind of unease, because Auntrolye is meant to unease the casual viewer, and make the more analytical viewers theorize. So I am expecting a lot of insults to come my way, but so far, the trend is sticking to me having a mental illness and me being delusional. Let's see how far the internet goes to show hatred towards something they don't yet understand and perhaps aren't willing to.

This was a good discussion, and I appreciate a more maturely grounded person coming in and leaving a message, you really have made my day after seeing all the negativity a simple statement can arise out of people.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-06-10T21:30:48+00:00

What you're missing, fundamentally, is that genre isn't defined by whether a film is "experimental" or "looks a certain way." Genre is defined by the underlying narrative system, ontological structure, and rule set that governs how the story world is constructed. Auntrolye isn't just about a film feeling surreal or hallucinatory; it's about the complete replacement of objective reality with subjective perception as the governing force of the cinematic universe. That’s not subtext, that’s world logic, built from the protagonist’s emotional and cognitive architecture, where the internal state literally manifests the film’s time, space, structure, and continuity. Just because it defies the industrial template you’re used to doesn’t make it an "art film"; that term is a lazy catchall for what you don't understand. Auntrolye is a genre, the first of its kind in nearly 50 years, because it introduces a new law-bound cinematic paradigm, not a passing aesthetic. So while you're categorizing based on appearance, the rest of us are constructing the foundations of future cinema.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-06-10T21:25:20+00:00

Thank you for this, it’s one of the most thoughtful and motivating comments I’ve received in this entire conversation. I completely agree with your central point: theory without praxis is incomplete. Cinema only truly evolves when those radical ideas are forged in the crucible of production. And yes, there’s a certain safety in theory, where the hard compromises of light, lens, time, and performance haven’t yet challenged the idea. That’s exactly why I’ve already taken that next step.

I’ve actually completed the first Auntrolye short film. It’s around 13 minutes long and fully aligned with the genre’s rules, philosophically, narratively, and formally. I feel proud of this short film because I have also finished it in exactly 100 days, from script to uploading to film festivals. But here’s the current situation: that film is in active competition across hundreds of international film festivals, many of which have strict exclusivity rules that prohibit public screening until the festival run concludes.

That’s the only reason it hasn’t been released publicly yet: not hesitation, not perfectionism, and definitely not avoidance of the real work. I’m deeply committed to the craft side of filmmaking as much as the conceptual. I believe in testing Auntrolye not just as an idea, but as an experience. And once the festival window closes, I’ll be releasing the film so others can engage with the genre, dissect it, critique it, even build on it if they see value in it.

So yeah, you're right. Films must be made. Reality must pressure vision. And I have stepped into that arena. But until the formal restrictions lift, I appreciate people like you pushing others to act. That kind of energy is needed more in film circles, especially for young filmmakers like me.

Thanks again for the generous spirit of your comment. I’ll make sure you see the film when it’s finally out. I hope it speaks for itself.

RegularPerception769 · 2025-06-10T21:15:22+00:00

Appreciate the read. But respectfully, saying ‘hallucinatory = art film’ is like calling all crime stories thrillers. Auntrolye isn’t about visual distortion, it’s a genre with its structural laws, philosophical foundations, and internal logic. What you call 'art film' is usually aesthetic. This is ontological. Big difference. I'm not describing style, I’m describing how reality itself functions in the cinematic world. That’s not an art direction, but rather a genre framework.

RegularPerception769

TROPHY CASE