|
Penpal posted:Also, a general movie question: Have any really good DP's gone on to direct really good films? Barry Sonnenfeld. DP for Misery, Miller's Crossing, When Harry Met Sally, Big (amongst others) - then directed my fave Addams Family Values (which I think is a really good film).
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:I don't think they mean usable footage, I think they mean they get 2-3 minutes of screentime. It's because setting up takes a long time and then you have to shoot the same scene from a lot of angles to be able to edit, and then you're having to set up each time. Director of Radioactive Man: Milhouse, we've got to shoot the Jimminy Jillikers scene again! Milhouse: But we did it! It took eighteen hours, but we did it! DoRM: Yes, but we've got to shoot it from different angles! Again and again and again...and again and again and again!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 18:38
|
|
|
I do know what happens when a special-effects make-up artist directs a movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
I have an HDTV and don't have HD service or Blu-ray. Suck it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
Penpal posted:Also, a general movie question: Have any really good DP's gone on to direct really good films? Edit: Although I think he directed Street Trash before being DP on any notable films...so he didn't go on to direct any really good films.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
Nuke Goes KABOOM posted:I have an HDTV and don't have HD service or Blu-ray. Suck it. So, what's the point of having an HDTV? Because it's a bigger screen?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
Nuke Goes KABOOM posted:I have an HDTV and don't have HD service or Blu-ray. Suck it. X2 Mainly I bought one as my old TV died and I figured it would be neat to have a large flatscreen TV for the 360. Of course, now that's dying. Ugh, planned obsolescence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 22:38
|
|
|
Nuke Goes KABOOM posted:I have an HDTV and don't have HD service or Blu-ray. Suck it. Your local stations don't broadcast in HD?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:So, what's the point of having an HDTV? Because it's a bigger screen? That and vidya games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I do know what happens when a special-effects make-up artist directs a movie. Didn't Tom Savini direct a remake of Night of the Living Dead?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
On the subject of Cache, after reading Roger Ebert's Great Movies review, he points to a shot at 20:39 that he calls "the smoking gun," even though he admits he's not entirely certain what it means. I fast-forwarded to this shot, and it's the dream-state (or so I thought) shot of Majid with a bloody mouth, and though it's dark, he may or may not be eating something. How the gently caress is this the smoking gun? I still think it's Pierrot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:On the subject of Cache, after reading Roger Ebert's Great Movies review, he points to a shot at 20:39 that he calls "the smoking gun," even though he admits he's not entirely certain what it means. I fast-forwarded to this shot, and it's the dream-state (or so I thought) shot of Majid with a bloody mouth, and though it's dark, he may or may not be eating something. How the gently caress is this the smoking gun? Yeah I don't really know what hes talking about either, its possible his timings are mixed up, because that scene doesn't really answer anything. What I've read other people talk about as something akin to a smoking gun is There is a shot where you are seeing the alleyway near their house where a car drives by and you can see a shadow of a camera set up on a wall for a brief moment. Because this would be seen as a continuity error people say that it must have been intentional by Haneke, and hes the one who is giving the video tapes to the main character (I forget his name  ) Which I actually think is a great theory, not because of that explanation, but because it seems like something Haneke would do, and there are plenty of stylistic reasons to believe it in the film itself.Cache is a really loving good movie though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:Yeah I don't really know what hes talking about either, its possible his timings are mixed up, because that scene doesn't really answer anything. What I've read other people talk about as something akin to a smoking gun is There is a shot where you are seeing the alleyway near their house where a car drives by and you can see a shadow of a camera set up on a wall for a brief moment. Because this would be seen as a continuity error people say that it must have been intentional by Haneke, and hes the one who is giving the video tapes to the main character (I forget his name But, yes, with Haneke's metafictional leanings, I agree that your interpretation is probably correct as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:The real smoking gun, I thought, was the shot at the end, which reveals that Pierrot knows Majid's son. That, combined with the economy-of-characters law and the fact that Pierrot is a rather underexplored and mysterious character -- those are the biggest clues to me. I don't really know if it proves what you are implying it proves, its entirely possible that its just a chance encounter. But thats why its such a good movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 00:59
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:I don't really know if it proves what you are implying it proves, its entirely possible that its just a chance encounter. Absolutely. I thought it was entirely deliberate that at the end of the movie we don't know who did it, and the reason for such is so we can feel Georges' unending frustration. With this movie, Haneke isn't crafting a subtle mystery for us to analyze stills from and obsess over. Instead he wants us to ponder on 'mystery' itself, and guilt, and grief.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 01:14
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:Absolutely. I thought it was entirely deliberate that at the end of the movie we don't know who did it, and the reason for such is so we can feel Georges' unending frustration. With this movie, Haneke isn't crafting a subtle mystery for us to analyze stills from and obsess over. Instead he wants us to ponder on 'mystery' itself, and guilt, and grief. Which is in line with how he generally makes movies, Time of the Wolf and Funny Games for example. I should watch more of his movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
And this is what happens when an editor directs a film. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Oz (Walter Murch)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 01:37
|
|
|
WebDog posted:And this is what happens when an editor directs a film. Return to Oz is awesome.  I almost like it better than Wizard of Oz. Almost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 01:40
|
|
|
WebDog posted:And this is what happens when an editor directs a film. An even worse one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253754/ (not to mention that it's a long-running franchise where the "director" claimed that he didn't need to watch a single episode to direct it. At this point, I'm pretty sure you know which movie I'm talking about).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 02:23
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Return to Oz is awesome. Agreeing with this with all my tin heart (if I only had a brain).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 02:26
|
|
|
And here's what happens when a hair stylist directs a movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338325/
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 02:38
|
|
|
Let's not even get into when a hair stylist produces movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 02:42
|
|
|
Return to Oz is the most creative interpretation of the Oz books to date and transforms two mediocre sequels into one fantastic reimagining of a familiar world. Is it as ground breaking as the MGM original? No. Is it a bit too scary for kids? Yes. But damnit, it's an awesome movie
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 04:17
|
|
|
Penpal posted:Also, a general movie question: Have any really good DP's gone on to direct really good films? Nicholas Roeg springs to mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
Penpal posted:Also, a general movie question: Have any really good DP's gone on to direct really good films? Christopher Doyle's segment of Paris je t'aime was my favorite, really genius. I haven't seen any of his features, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 06:16
|
|
|
Saul Bass was a graphic designer who made some incredible and iconic movie posters: (he also designed the Bell Telephone logo and the AT&T "death star") He also made some fantastic film title sequences, like the one from Psycho (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4L9J-CUAl8) or Vertigo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkHn8PNGYaA). Anyway, here's what happens when a graphic designer makes a movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070531/ I think this is a really good and largely overlooked film. I don't know why people don't lump it in with the canon of 70s sci-fi, because it really belongs in there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 14:53
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Saul Bass was a graphic designer who made some incredible and iconic movie posters: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1343063261314199679 Here's him discussing various title sequences he did. He also made an academy winning doco in 1968 "Why man creates" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nHOWkfGFsk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_cXXdEpeZg
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 14:59
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:Return to Oz is the most creative interpretation of the Oz books to date and transforms two mediocre sequels into one fantastic reimagining of a familiar world. Is it as ground breaking as the MGM original? No. Is it a bit too scary for kids? Yes. I agree with this completely, although I remember seeing this as a kid and liking it a lot, I didn't find it that terrifying. Disney has made a few movies I liked a lot (and still do), but they weren't happy with their own work and really downplayed them. The Black Hole was another such movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 15:00
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Your local stations don't broadcast in HD? Or he might not have an HD cable box where that TV is located.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 15:34
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Anyway, here's what happens when a graphic designer makes a movie: Phase IV is AWESOME. It drags a bit near the end, but on the whole it's beautiful and hallucinatory - should be in that surreal movie thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
In Sherlock Holmes Sherlock clearly punches people in the face in slow motion. How do they accomplish this affect? It is a mask with ballistics gel and make up? I mean they can't just actually go around punching people as hard as they can in the face right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
I'm not gonna say I know this for fact but yes. For the sake of film (or at least a decent paycheck), you will find someone willing to be socked in the jaw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 06:06
|
|
|
thehandtruck posted:In Sherlock Holmes Sherlock clearly punches people in the face in slow motion. How do they accomplish this affect? It is a mask with ballistics gel and make up? I mean they can't just actually go around punching people as hard as they can in the face right? It can be done in CG. The climactic facepunch in Matrix Revolutions was CG.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
ZackHoagie posted:I'm not gonna say I know this for fact but yes. For the sake of film (or at least a decent paycheck), you will find someone willing to be socked in the jaw. I believe they are commonly called "stuntmen" and can be found in any actor listing in Hollywood. In fact, they may even have their own listings!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 06:10
|
|
|
thehandtruck posted:In Sherlock Holmes Sherlock clearly punches people in the face in slow motion. How do they accomplish this affect? It is a mask with ballistics gel and make up? I mean they can't just actually go around punching people as hard as they can in the face right? Shooting with a high speed camera, you'd be surprised how much the human face wobbles. http://vimeo.com/1675008
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
WebDog posted:Shooting with a high speed camera, you'd be surprised how much the human face wobbles. Wow cool. See, that video would be great if at the end it showed how hard the punch was (in real time), because I guess that's really what I'm trying to understand. I mean it's gotta be a pretty big paycheck to sustain, what looks like, a concussion or other forms of mild brain damage. thehandtruck fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Apr 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 07:01
|
|
|
I watched "In the Heat of the Night" last night. Overall it was pretty solid, great performances by Poitier and Steiger, but I didn't quite follow the logic of the investigation. Tibbs and Gillespie go out with Sam on his regular rounds, they avoid the slutty little girl's house, and then Sam is accused of murder. Then, the girl comes in with her brother, saying Sam knocked her up. Finally, of course, Tibbs visits the abortionist and catches the girl with her real baby daddy, the cafe guy, who's the real killer. But how in hell did they make the logical leap from "the girl is pregnant" to "whoever knocked this girl up killed Colbert"? Was it just the money? edit: if this is in the wrong thread, sorry, I just couldn't find another thread for "I have a specific question about a specific movie"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 15:00
|
|
|
thehandtruck posted:In Sherlock Holmes Sherlock clearly punches people in the face in slow motion. How do they accomplish this affect? It is a mask with ballistics gel and make up? I mean they can't just actually go around punching people as hard as they can in the face right? In the extras on the Blu-ray, they show a few takes of those scenes, and yeah, it's people gettin' punched in the face. Robert Downey also did his own stunts in that boxing scene!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
What are some movies that really give a nice sense of weight and urgency to the use of firearms? A good number of films that involve hails of bullets don't tend to capture my attention. Also, I'd prefer less recommendations for war films, since I have a bunch of those on my list I need to watch anyway. For reference, I've seen a fair chunk of the more popular action/adventure choices like Die Hard (which I actually thought handled the employment of guns very well, despite some scenes of heavy use) and most of the obvious films from the 80s, but not a whole bunch of independent films that involve guns in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
ServoMST3K posted:What are some movies that really give a nice sense of weight and urgency to the use of firearms? A good number of films that involve hails of bullets don't tend to capture my attention. Also, I'd prefer less recommendations for war films, since I have a bunch of those on my list I need to watch anyway. I've been meaning to see Punisher: Warzone (I think that's the title?) due to posts in some SA thread saying it was very firearm-focused, with proper but still really entertaining methods to all his destruction. Oh, and watch Heat, now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 21:31
|
|
