|
Schweinhund posted:Are there any movies (or any medium I guess) where they try to have something look like it was filmed a long time ago and it really looks like it? It seems like whenever they try to make something look like it was filmed like it was in the 30's or 40', or even the 60's or 70's or whenever, it always looks too crisp or just off in some way. Can't they just use an old movie camera and do it like that or is it something with modern film stock that makes everything look modern? You'd probably love both Forgotten Silver and Zelig.
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Are there any movies (or any medium I guess) where they try to have something look like it was filmed a long time ago and it really looks like it? The Elephant Man was filmed in 1980. I think does a pretty good job of giving the appearance of being a much older movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Are there any movies (or any medium I guess) where they try to have something look like it was filmed a long time ago and it really looks like it? It seems like whenever they try to make something look like it was filmed like it was in the 30's or 40', or even the 60's or 70's or whenever, it always looks too crisp or just off in some way. Can't they just use an old movie camera and do it like that or is it something with modern film stock that makes everything look modern? Peter Jackson made a mockumentary called Forgotten Silver, where he claims to have discovered the lost films of New Zealand's first major filmmaker. It's all an elaborate hoax, of course, but all of the supposedly lost footage that they show was shot on silent-era cameras and purposely dirtied up to give it the feel of a film reel that's been rotting in a canister in a tool shed for 80 years. e: f; b
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 05:58
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:Lumière and Company should be right up your alley, although I haven't seen it yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Are there any movies (or any medium I guess) where they try to have something look like it was filmed a long time ago and it really looks like it? It seems like whenever they try to make something look like it was filmed like it was in the 30's or 40', or even the 60's or 70's or whenever, it always looks too crisp or just off in some way. Can't they just use an old movie camera and do it like that or is it something with modern film stock that makes everything look modern? The Last Picture Show looks straight out of the early 50s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 06:24
|
|
|
That Guy Maddin short was the best example of what I'm looking for. It definitely looks like it's from 1920 for the most part. I was more just wondering why it seems so many movies do such a bad job of reproducing that old look when they try to. A good example is the Dharma orientation films from Lost. They were supposed to look like they were shot in the 70s but they really didn't look like it. Is it possible to just take an old film camera and shoot footage that would look like that Guy Maddin film, not counting the wear of course. Or has film stock improved so much that it's not possible? It seems you can't just take any modern footage and get that look with effects/processing since you can subconsciously tell that it's not authentic. edit: just looked at a clip from Lumiere & Company and that looks pretty good too. Schweinhund fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Jun 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
The Good German - Steven Soderbergh Was an attempt in 2006 to make a modern film in the same style as one from 1945 but with the addition of not being restricted by the ratings of the day (swearing and nudity). That meant 1.66:1 ratio, dramatic staging and blocking, and the use of deep focus lenses and other dated recording techniques to mimic the same conditions. The movie was a flop and was criticised for being too reliant on style as opposed to getting good characters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 08:35
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Is it possible to just take an old film camera and shoot footage that would look like that Guy Maddin film, not counting the wear of course. Nope. The biggest technical issue is that modern film doesn't fit old cameras and old lenses don't fit modern ones. Other issues is that film framerates were variable, caused by hand cranking and so forth. Early film framerates were around 18 fps as opposed to 24fps. Plus modern lenses capture light far better, which is why there's less blowout and flares. "There Will be Blood" used a Pathe camera from 1910 for very short scenes, as the camera wasn't steady with it's color and has a low resolution. But (as shown by Dr. Plonk) it is possible to adapt a hand-crank method to a modern camera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVkgZSo2MPA&feature=related
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 09:10
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Are there any movies (or any medium I guess) where they try to have something look like it was filmed a long time ago and it really looks like it? It seems like whenever they try to make something look like it was filmed like it was in the 30's or 40', or even the 60's or 70's or whenever, it always looks too crisp or just off in some way. Can't they just use an old movie camera and do it like that or is it something with modern film stock that makes everything look modern? I thought CQ by Roman Coppola did a decent job of that. So did OSS117 too, actually. That's two just off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 12:09
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Are there any movies (or any medium I guess) where they try to have something look like it was filmed a long time ago and it really looks like it? It seems like whenever they try to make something look like it was filmed like it was in the 30's or 40', or even the 60's or 70's or whenever, it always looks too crisp or just off in some way. Can't they just use an old movie camera and do it like that or is it something with modern film stock that makes everything look modern? Young Frankenstein, and Down With Love
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 12:34
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Are there any movies (or any medium I guess) where they try to have something look like it was filmed a long time ago and it really looks like it? It seems like whenever they try to make something look like it was filmed like it was in the 30's or 40', or even the 60's or 70's or whenever, it always looks too crisp or just off in some way. Can't they just use an old movie camera and do it like that or is it something with modern film stock that makes everything look modern? The House of the Devil did a really good job of looking like a cheap horror flick from the '80s, down to the font for the credits and the incidental music. Also it was released on VHS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 15:44
|
|
|
SubG posted:The Lynch film in that is loving astonishing. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=147636485853600786 The Lynch segment is here for anyone who hasn't seen it. It sends chills up my spine every time I watch it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 16:18
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Are there any movies (or any medium I guess) where they try to have something look like it was filmed a long time ago and it really looks like it? It seems like whenever they try to make something look like it was filmed like it was in the 30's or 40', or even the 60's or 70's or whenever, it always looks too crisp or just off in some way. Can't they just use an old movie camera and do it like that or is it something with modern film stock that makes everything look modern? There is also the Call of the Cthulu silent film that was made a few years back. It looks like it should, but the set and costumes and everything I think play a bigger part than the actual film quality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=147636485853600786
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
I think it was 3 takes, but, yeah, it was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the development process different for most modern films now as opposed to 70's era and before? I would imagine that would be responsible for a lot of the changes in the look of the film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 20:51
|
|
|
WebDog posted:"There Will be Blood" used a Pathe camera from 1910 for very short scenes, as the camera wasn't steady with it's color and has a low resolution. Magnolia has a scene in the beginning (the Greenberry Hill coincidence) that was shot with that camera as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I think it was 3 takes, but, yeah, it was amazing. A link to the short prefaced by Lynch directing the film in one take. SubG fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jun 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
I'm watching the Mad Max films for the first time, and I have a question: what is the continuity between the three? I mean, in the first one the world is still rather normal, except that Australia's roads have a fair amount of anarchy on them. Then, from what I've gathered, in the second one the world is in some sort of post-apocalyptic state after oil runs out, and in the third one there's been a bloody nuclear war?! Is this meant to be like Leone's Dollar-trilogy or Rodriquez his Mariachi-trilogy, where it's just certain characters acting out different stories without really being connected to each other, or are we to believe that one man witnesses the collapse of society two to three times before reaching his forties? EDITed for grammar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
I think the oil scarcity caused the war. Isn't that the implication of the opening monologue of the second one?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
Think of the movies less in terms of a literal narrative, and more in terms of a folk hero. Max is a character people tell stories about over a campfire in the wastes. We're watching these stories. That said, I always found the progression between 1 and 2 pretty jarring, but I always sort of assumed 2 and 3 take place more in the outback and 1 was closer to the coasts. Maybe there were more resources discovered somewhat more centrally and people spread out more. Maybe they live in a On The Beach-style world, where Australia is the last livable place left amongst the nuclear wreckage, and even then just barely so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 23:04
|
|
|
Mad Max is great because of the way it handles the apocalypse. The end of the civilized world has happened and they're trying to grasp on to the very last vestiges of it. It never out-and-out tells you this, but you get hints all around. That's why it's "The last of the V8-Interceptors" - there's no more cars being made.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 12:03
|
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:Think of the movies less in terms of a literal narrative, and more in terms of a folk hero. Max is a character people tell stories about over a campfire in the wastes. We're watching these stories. It always seemed to me that 1 was in the remains of civilization. At the end of the movie, he rolls out into the wastes and just never comes back, which is where the other 2 movies take place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 14:23
|
|
|
Dyscrasia posted:It always seemed to me that 1 was in the remains of civilization. At the end of the movie, he rolls out into the wastes and just never comes back, which is where the other 2 movies take place. This was always my interpretation. I figured the Max's home was in shambles because it was isolated from the rest of the world, because most of the world was gone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
I always figured Mad Max took place during the collapse of civilization, but before the nukes started flying. 2 is some years after, and then 3 is again, a decade or more since the war. Assuming the ages of the kids living in the grotto can give you some kind of timeline. Which is doubtful. I was putting dvds out at work and I realized, Edge of Darkness, starring Mel Gibson seemed like it was a Direct to DVD movie. It may have been in theaters, but I don't remember. But growing up, Mel Gibson was one of the biggest movie stars ever. Along with Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts, Angelina Jolie and others. They got 20 million dollars a movie, and everything they touched was gold. But that day is over. No one gets that kind of money these days, and those stars aren't as talked about outside of ET and Access Hollywood, who are more concerned with Lady Gaga tripping or Twilight films. So what happened? The economy caused those massive salaries to become unthinkable? Too many stinkers? Drunken rants about jews? It's interesting to think I lived though the rise and demise of the megastar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I was putting dvds out at work and I realized, Edge of Darkness, starring Mel Gibson seemed like it was a Direct to DVD movie. It may have been in theaters, but I don't remember. It was in theaters. It was also one of the most entertaining thrillers I've seen in a long time, though most people seem to feel that it was average at best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 02:39
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:So what happened? The economy caused those massive salaries to become unthinkable? Too many stinkers? Drunken rants about jews? It's interesting to think I lived though the rise and demise of the megastar. I honestly haven't been impressed by Cruise and Gibson's acting for a while now. Cruise is now doing fat suit acting (Tropic Thunder)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
There are still plenty of "megastar" actors. Clooney is still definitely up there and Brad Pitt seems untouchable with regards to any personal life issues he has in that it never really seems to effect his movies. Edit: Gibson hasn't really acted in five years. He took quite a long break from acting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 02:55
|
|
|
Didn't Gibson make like a billion dollars off that Jesus movie? I don't think he needs the work and has mostly just been chillin with his dough. Plus he does have a bunch of stuff in the pipeline according to imdb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 03:09
|
|
|
Yeah, he had a real sweetheart deal with profits toward The Passion (since he funded the production and distribution with his own companies.) Not to mention that the movie was merchandised out the rear end. muscles like this! fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jun 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
What movie is this from? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 07:13
|
|
|
That would be Hitchcock's Spellbound.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 07:17
|
|
|
Thank you very much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 07:19
|
|
|
Every time I see that gif my brain inserts goofy sound effects. "Look out!" schloop! SPROING! sklortch! bum bum buh-duhhh bwaaaaah
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 07:23
|
|
|
CD, could you please help me identify a movie. It has been bothering me for some time, and it's to the point now where I think that it straight up never existed. I saw a preview for it in the theater, maybe 3-5 years ago: from what I can remember there is some kind of supernatural or alien force psychologically taking over people and at least one character (probably the protagonist) is not affected and is trying to investigate. At one point there is a large group of people watching someone jump of a building, and a voiceover says something like, "Don't show emotion, don't let them know." I keep seeing Julianne Moore in my head, but I checked her movies and none would match this. Any suggestions greatly appreciated
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 08:11
|
|
|
That's The Invasion, a remake of The Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 08:21
|
|
|
Ah, Nicole Kidman's red hair, that's why I was thinking Julianne Moore. Thanks for the swift response, sir. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 08:25
|
|
|
Haha, no problem. I never saw the film myself but I remember that part of the trailer. It got pretty middling reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 08:39
|
|
|
Binowru posted:Why the hell is Armageddon in the Criterion Collection? I know it was a little while ago, but I just wanted to point out that the following films are also in the Criterion collection: Videodrome The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Blood for Dracula Flesh for Frankenstein Slacker My Dinner with Andre Naked Lunch Traffic Rushmore Beastie Boys Video Anthology These aren't exactly classics. Besides, despite Armageddon being hokey and somewhat brainless, at least it's competently made, and far tighter and more engaging that anything else Michael Bay has created in recent memory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Blompkin posted:Videodrome
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 16:48
|
|
