|
InfiniteZero posted:Well then that makes me quite the idiot I guess. No, not really. Also, scheduling, esp for independent films, also depends a lot on cast availability: if Depp is only available for a certain limited period, then that's when they'll film his scenes.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 12:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
So I just saw the 2005 War of the Worlds (part of it, anyway) on TNT and I'm confused by something: is Dakota Fanning's character just an INCREDIBLY annoying representation of what an scared-shitless 10 year old would be in that situation, or does she have some sort of specific mental issues? I only ask as the older brother character kept breaking into a coordinated arm-movement/vocal repetition "This is your safe place" thing to calm her down....as if this wasn't the first time he had to calm her down from breaking into hysterics. I didn't catch the first half hour or so, but neither the film's main Wiki or IMDB pages mentioned anything about this. Am I just reading too much into a "scared kid" character?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2009 03:27
|
|
|
Pretty much she has every kind of malady in the book, you know, to give her depth. And so she can freak out at any moment to put the rest of them into danger. I was watching Legend recently, and besides realizing the plot makes more sens that I remember, is there any significants to the stars that shoot out after The Lord of Darkness is blasted off into the void?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2009 06:29
|
|
|
Oops, wrong thread.
Bone Crimes fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Dec 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 05:23
|
|
|
so in sunshine, how does pinbacker manage to get from icarus 1 to icarus 2, and how is it not noticed by the rest of the crew?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 08:26
|
|
|
i am not so sure posted:so in sunshine, how does pinbacker manage to get from icarus 1 to icarus 2, and how is it not noticed by the rest of the crew? Pinbacker is chilling in his isolated and derelict spaceship. When Icarus 2 docks, he is able to gain access to the second Icarus. The ships themselves aren't exactly tiny and they all break off to determine the status of the ship and what might be salvageable in different sections of I2. That entire period of time is the span he can cross over to Icarus 1 unnoticed. The only people on Icarus 2 at the time are on the bridge (or Trey in sickback) so it's unlikely anyone would stumble onto him. He busies himself up sabotaging the coupling between I1 and I2 but again nobody is likely to be anywhere near him at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 09:01
|
|
|
IanCaw posted:So I just saw the 2005 War of the Worlds (part of it, anyway) on TNT and I'm confused by something: is Dakota Fanning's character just an INCREDIBLY annoying representation of what an scared-shitless 10 year old would be in that situation, or does she have some sort of specific mental issues? I'm not sure exactly how you expect a ten year old girl to behave during what is essentially the apocalypse? It didn't seem particularly out of line to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 04:07
|
|
|
I've forgotten what this film is. Its poster features a lighthouse, which is also prominent in the film's trailer. This movie is in black and white and wasn't released more than three years ago. I think it's French, but I could be wrong; in any case, it played Cannes or some other major festivals, and the director has made some films before. There was a definite film noir vibe to the movie, that I've also heard is a rather slow-moving picture. I don't have any other details, except to say this has been gnawing at me for some time. gently caress, I hope it's not actually called The Lighthouse!
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 19:27
|
|
|
the boy in a well posted:I've forgotten what this film is. Its poster features a lighthouse, which is also prominent in the film's trailer. This movie is in black and white and wasn't released more than three years ago. I think it's French, but I could be wrong; in any case, it played Cannes or some other major festivals, and the director has made some films before. There was a definite film noir vibe to the movie, that I've also heard is a rather slow-moving picture. I don't have any other details, except to say this has been gnawing at me for some time. gently caress, I hope it's not actually called The Lighthouse! Not quite a lighthouse, but it sounds an awful lot like The Man from London. Like all Bela Tarr films, it is exceptionally slow-moving, but very worthwhile.  Also, we have a special thread for this kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 19:36
|
|
|
Ah yes! I remembered that slightly wrong. Thanks.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 19:42
|
|
|
I just recently watched Snow White for the first time, and I'd like some context about how innovative it was for its time. Was Snow White the first portrayal of realistically proportioned humans in a cartoon? Was it the first dramatic (non-comical) cartoon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 01:02
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I just recently watched Snow White for the first time, and I'd like some context about how innovative it was for its time. It wasn't the "first" of anything as much as the first to gain true success and notoriety. Some animated features had been made in the 1920s, for example. But it was the film that popularized the animated feature, Technicolor for features, and established most of the guidelines for animation from then on. It was the first to have an official soundtrack album, though. Usually, songs were re-recorded, but this was a rare instance of the originals being issued.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 01:13
|
|
|
In The Exorcist, why does the demon target Regan?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 00:44
|
|
|
There's no reason stated in the novel or the film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 00:57
|
|
|
Ebba posted:In The Exorcist, why does the demon target Regan? I always assumed it had something to do with her finding and playing with the Ouija board (with Captain Howdy).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 01:01
|
|
|
Ebba posted:In The Exorcist, why does the demon target Regan? This was explained in The Exorcist 2, something about her being kind of like an Indigo child/Starchild evolutionary thing, and the demon is trying to posess people with psychic abilities because of something to do with locusts in Africa. In other words, the first movie doesn't explain anything at all, and it's for the best if you just skip directly ahead to Exorcist 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 02:36
|
|
|
BulletRiddled posted:In other words, the first movie doesn't explain anything at all, and it's for the best if you just skip directly ahead to Exorcist 3. The true sequel to The Exorcist is The Ninth Configuration. Exorcist 2 is just an embarassment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 02:38
|
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:The true sequel to The Exorcist is The Ninth Configuration. Exorcist 2 is just an embarassment. I'll defend Exorcist III with my dying breath, but number 2 sucked soooo much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 02:56
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:I'll defend Exorcist III with my dying breath, but number 2 sucked soooo much. Exorcist 3 is a loving masterpiece. I think I might prefer it to the original, but that may just be because of Brad Dourif. VVV That being? Professor Clumsy fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Dec 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 03:04
|
|
|
In my opinion it definitely has more rewatch value, and Dourif is amazing, and as far as I'm concerned there's only one slight misstep in the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 03:09
|
|
|
OK FOLKS posted:This a movie production question: Production overruns on some other film (could have been Night At The Museum 2) pushed back the studio shots for Imaginarium. Production in Vancouver originally started in July 2007 but was suspended until November 2007. Pretty sure the original plan was to shoot in the opposite order. Also, it's absolutely not true it was originally planned to have different actors play Heath's role in the through the mirror sequences. I worked on the film and it was cancelled for five weeks before production resumed. the talent deficit fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Dec 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 06:36
|
|
|
jjack229 posted:What is up with the recurring theme of humans are good but flawed (or more specifically those qualities that make us good also make us flawed, but it is worth it because we are so good)? Old post, I know, but some of this is anti-Commie relics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 17:37
|
|
|
When they convert films for PAL, do they speed it up 4%?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2010 08:08
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:When they convert films for PAL, do they speed it up 4%? If you read the ratings pages at the BBFC they always mentions this to explain why home video releases always seem to be shorter than their theatrical brethren.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2010 08:18
|
|
|
Akuma posted:Usually. Going from 29.97fps to 25fps kind of necessitates it, and unless you pitch down the audio afterwards it's fairly noticeable. Film is 24 fps. The BBFC page is here. NTSC is 30 fps, and I was told many years ago that the difference is made up by repeating every fifth frame. That may be totally wrong. Now that I think about it, I have no idea what that would do to the audio track.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2010 14:02
|
|
|
SaintFu posted:Film is 24 fps. Look here for an explanation of film to NTSC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
The thing that confuses people about the frame rate conversion is frames per second vs fields per second. If you think of NTSC as 60i rather than 30p, it might make more sense understanding how telecine works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
I'm looking for the name of a movie, or maybe a TV show. It's a cartoon, I remember watching it when I was very young. I believe it was either a Thanksgiving or Christmas movie. There were dancing salt and pepper shakers. Maybe a cooked turkey dancing or something stupid like that. Like all the food in the kitchen was suddenly animated and started dancing... That's all I can really remember. I did a google search for holiday movies and scanned through them, but nothing struck me. I'm feeling suddenly nostalgic. Any help would be appreciated. -Gwen
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 11:17
|
|
|
Does Die Hard take place on Dec. 24th 1987 or Dec. 24th 1988?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 11:38
|
|
|
Ytadel posted:Does Die Hard take place on Dec. 24th 1987 or Dec. 24th 1988? wiki has release as 7/15/88 so it shouldn't be the latter. I don't think any year is mentioned though but Skeletons by Stevie Wonder was playing in the limo and that was a 1987 single so it was possibly a year's best countdown playing since I can't see any other reason why that song would be there. Die Hard 2 by comparison has to taken place on or after 12/24/90 due to the Simpsons episode in the plane even though that was a July 4th release that year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
In The Thomas Crow Affair, how does Brosnan's character manages to put the painting on the case and close it without seriously damaging it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 15:30
|
|
|
In WW2 films, are the tanks and other heavy equipment mock ups, reconstructions or the real thing? There was a bout a million M1s and Kar98s made, so it's not hard to imagine that the guns being used are real, but I was wondering about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 07:10
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:In The Thomas Crow Affair, how does Brosnan's character manages to put the painting on the case and close it without seriously damaging it? Only the wooden backing frame that the canvas is on is damaged. I guess folding the canvas in half might not do any damage to it. The painting is reattached to a new frame when Tom Crow gets home. I guess the film originally showed the frame breaking as he closed the briefcase, but producers or whoever thought audiences wouldn't get that only backing is being broken (not the painting itself), so they took it out and just sort of waved their hands and hoped nobody would care. Groundskeeper Silly fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jan 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 07:43
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:In WW2 films, are the tanks and other heavy equipment mock ups, reconstructions or the real thing? It really depends on the film, when it was made, and what the budget was. These days a lot of the tanks and planes and so forth are just CG. Between the time when the Soviet Union was imploding and when CG effects took over an awful lot of old T-34s and so on were standing in for all kinds of armour; most of the German tanks in Saving Private Ryan (1998), for example, were modified T-34s. Earlier, a lot of tanks used in films were just whatever the Army would lend to studios plus some paint; most of the German tanks in Patton (1970) were in fact M-48 `Patton' tanks and the U.S. tanks were mostly Korean-era M-24s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
SubG posted:Yes. Yea, I'm one of those "BUT THOSE AREN'T PANZERS!" people who can't watch Patton. Which is annoying because otherwise it's a fantastic movie. I know that all the aircraft in The Battle of Britain were actual leftover WW2 planes. I was sorta hoping that there was some guys in hollywood that had the job of turning old tracked earthmovers into Stugs and Panzer's for Band of Brothers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 09:17
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Yea, I'm one of those "BUT THOSE AREN'T PANZERS!" people who can't watch Patton. There are two unrelated threads about panzer tanks in CineD in one day (they're discussing panzers over in the "Best of 2009" thread too). I find this very confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:There are two unrelated threads about panzer tanks in CineD in one day (they're discussing panzers over in the "Best of 2009" thread too). I find this very confusing. Well, to me it's more a movie using something that looks completely different from what they're describing. It would be like watching Public Enemies, and insted of cars from the 20s, they were all scooting around in PT Crusiers because they were easier to get, or they were toting MP5 because they would be easier to get than Thompsons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Well, to me it's more a movie using something that looks completely different from what they're describing. It would be like watching Public Enemies, and insted of cars from the 20s, they were all scooting around in PT Crusiers because they were easier to get, or they were toting MP5 because they would be easier to get than Thompsons. Oh that's fine, and I even understand your issue with it all. I just didn't expect this to be Panzer Discusso today. No worries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
I recently watched Synecdoche, New York; and I'd like to read the SA discussion on it, but I cannot find it. Has it already hit the archives?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Well, to me it's more a movie using something that looks completely different from what they're describing. It would be like watching Public Enemies, and insted of cars from the 20s, they were all scooting around in PT Crusiers because they were easier to get, or they were toting MP5 because they would be easier to get than Thompsons. And when they want a horse, they just tape a bunch of cats together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 06:43
|
|
