|
twistedmentat posted:So I was just watching the Runaways, and The Hollywood sign has always made me wonder. I can understand it was lovely and falling apart in the 70s, because pretty much everything during that era was dirty and falling apart (at least according to my parents and any "realistic" film set in that era), but there are a lot of scenes of them hanging out there. There are lots of other movies and tv shows that show people either being romantic there or just going there to chill. You can go up the hill, but you can't get to the actual sign.
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
SubG posted:It's not a puzzle to be figured out. It's considered a great film because of craftsmanship: Towne's script, Polanski's direction, Goldsmith's score, the acting, the production design, and so forth. It evokes a certain time and more particularly a certain genre of fiction, and it does this superlatively and without either being merely a pastiche or engaging in revisionism. Got it, thanks. I feel like I need to watch it again to really appreciate it because it totally wasn't what I expected and I think that distracted me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Got it, thanks. I feel like I need to watch it again to really appreciate it because it totally wasn't what I expected and I think that distracted me. Just curious - what were you expecting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 06:05
|
|
|
In movies from the 60's and 70's, outdoor scenes that take place at night and were shot on location often look comically bad (especially action scenes), since they were clearly filmed during the day with a filter over the lens to make it look like night. Night scenes shot on a sound stage however, tend to look fine, and I can't figure out why there's such a huge difference. Was the "day as night" due to a technical limitation, or was it just a case of being easier to shoot in daylight with a filter thrown on the lens?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 06:20
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure they still shoot night scenes like that sometimes. It's more done with underexposing the film than with the filter. And I imagine they can just set the lighting how they want when it's done indoors instead of using underexposure and filters. Not sure why they don't just shoot at night.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 06:39
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Night scenes shot on a sound stage however, tend to look fine, and I can't figure out why there's such a huge difference. A stage is completely controlled, if you turn of all the lights it's pitch black, there's nothing casting any light so it's very easy to make something appear it's at night. Outdoors you have the sun to contend with. In short the sun gives a far greater wash of light and is harsh, in comparison the moon is not much more than a giant reflector, more diffused and softer. Day for night is done for time and logistics constraints. For example, you are filming at a historical monument and you can only negotiate three hours to shoot two scenes at the same place. It is quicker to change costumes and swap over filters and stock that match a night look than to arrange two sessions that add to the shooting schedule. Nowadays with greater post production image control we're able to fine tune things to give a far more convincing effect than having to use tungsten stock and underexposing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 06:48
|
|
|
Day for night can be dopey, but it has the advantage of legibility. The night photography in Road Warrior, for example, is much more authentic looking, but completely impenetrable. This post really didn't have much of a point except that I want to address how loving awful the night photography is in Road Warrior. I'm pretty sure Butch Cassidy was just as bad. 
penismightier fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jul 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 07:30
|
|
|
On Fawlty Towers and some other british shows of that era, stuff shot indoors always looked okay, but stuff shot outdoors always looked to be pretty low quality. Was this due to low light, a different camera, or what? It has a very distinct look. I'm curious as to what camera they used for each.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 07:52
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Just curious - what were you expecting? I'm not entirely sure. The really deliberate pacing and small scale of the plot kind of threw me off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 07:59
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:On Fawlty Towers and some other british shows of that era, stuff shot indoors always looked okay, but stuff shot outdoors always looked to be pretty low quality. Was this due to low light, a different camera, or what? It has a very distinct look. I'm curious as to what camera they used for each. With Fawlty Towers and most shows like that they would switch to 16mm for outdoor shots. The distinct look is the "we're spending as little money as possible!" style. Britain's TV system wasn't as powerful as its American counterpart, so where many shows in the United States were shot on 16mm/35mm up to and occasionally through the 70s, the UK switched to videotape as soon as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 10:24
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Does netflix instant always put on the theatrical version of a movie? Or do they sometimes put the unrated/director's cut on or both? I think this is a case by case thing. Cry Baby on instant is the theatrical cut but the page for it says it's the unrated dvd. SubG posted:I mean I don't want to go on about it but the series was bad. Like really, really bad. What am I missing? Does the entire cast get wiped out in the second season and replaced by something more entertaining, like sock puppets or something? Sarah Connor was probably the worst thing about the show, overall. Garret Dillahunt was the best. John had his moments near the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 11:04
|
|
|
Chinatown always seemed to me like it could have been a James Ellroy book if it was grittier. Edit: Ninja Gamer posted:Garret Dillahunt was the best. He's been amazing in everything I've seen him in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 11:44
|
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:Garret Dillahunt was the best. I mean there's lots of other problems. Like I said, the acting is on the whole execrable. And it's not like Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Michael Biehn, and Edward loving Furlong are exactly a thespian braintrust. But they're the goddamn Royal Shakespeare Company compared to the cast of the series. And the writing. Bleeeech. Sarah Connor's psychiatrist recalls, breathlessly, the time she's rescued from the asylum by a terminator by, no poo poo, comparing the scene to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. He straight up I poo poo you not says that the terminator reaching out to Connor is like God reaching to Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. While the music swells dramatically. And then he says, `The Hand of God,' breathlessly. You can hear all the caps in there. This gets repeated a couple of times in case you might have missed it. `The Hand of God'. Breathlessly. With music cues. The writing is just dire. I mean I know I'm going on about it, but it's almost mesmerising how bad the drat thing is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 12:40
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Ugh of all the stupid things in Salvation, Star was the one I hated the most. Why do we always, always have to have kids in movies? The only place they have is to give one of the adult characters something more to worry about. Blame Mad Max 2 for that. That kid worked in that film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 13:23
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:With Fawlty Towers and most shows like that they would switch to 16mm for outdoor shots. The distinct look is the "we're spending as little money as possible!" style. Britain's TV system wasn't as powerful as its American counterpart, so where many shows in the United States were shot on 16mm/35mm up to and occasionally through the 70s, the UK switched to videotape as soon as possible. They still do shoot on 35 and 16 for television. Though digital as eaten heavily into the s16 part. One mind blowing thing I love to mention is that Seinfield was shot on 35. A sitcom, with huge amounts of coverage. They would go through thousands of feet a scene. Also the reason why day for night was used was because film stock back then were not very sensitive compared to today. If you guys understand ISO on cameras (referred more commonly as ASA for film), they had to work with 50-100 speed stocks. Which is an exponential measurement, each time it doubles is a full stop of light. 50-100-200-400-500 Last one is the modern a speed - 1/3 of a stop more than 400. That means back then they needed 3 1/3 to 4 1/3 more light to produce the same exposure. That's like a 60 watt bulb today would have been a 260 watt bulb back then. In fact in my taste, the reason why movies look a lot shitter is that you can get away with doing less work lighting it so less thought and effort goes into it. Digital just makes it worse when you have people pushing 1000-6400 ISO numbers meaning they are practically in night vision territory and all the contrast and art melts away into a colourless and lifeless mess. Mozzie fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jul 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 18:55
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:You can go up the hill, but you can't get to the actual sign.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
I couldn't find a specific thread for identifying films and I didn't think it was worth making a whole new thread about it. Basically, last night I watched a snippet from a film while really drunk. My memory is a little hazy, but it was something like this: -looked like it was out of the late 80s/early 90s -A group of (civilians?) were on some televised death game show or something, I think they were in an underground dome -Lots of them died to some fat electric clown whose face was really familiar -at one point a (newsman?) attached a jeckpack to himself and joined the hunt, he had a flamethrower IIRC. Any ideas on what it is? Typing in "Electric clown film" garners The Brave Little Toaster on google. Sorry for the bad description but for all I know I saw the title and forgot about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
A Futbol Injustice posted:But could you, way back when? I don't really think so. Seems like it would've been trashed by now. The sign actually was an advertisement for the land surrounding it. It failed, but the sign became iconic. Recently the developer that owns the land wanted to actually use it and develop it into a resort hotel. People freaked out and rallied to stop it. Everybody was getting upset, and Hugh Heffner ended up swooping in to buy the land around it. The whole incident was kinda dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
Co-sine posted:I couldn't find a specific thread for identifying films and I didn't think it was worth making a whole new thread about it. Sounds like The Running Man. Also it sounds like you were really loving drunk- maybe having a great loving time, too. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Sounds like The Running Man. Also it sounds like you were really loving drunk- maybe having a great loving time, too. He's probably on a government watchlist by now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
What is the preferred language for viewing Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 22:02
|
|
|
MajorB posted:What is the preferred language for viewing Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
A Futbol Injustice posted:Crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Sounds like The Running Man. Also it sounds like you were really loving drunk- maybe having a great loving time, too. Yeah, pretty much. It was the running man? I actually own the Stephen king ('Richard Bachman') story, but I never got around to reading it. a quick google search tells me that the film is very different from the book. Can't wait to look at both, thanks guys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
MajorB posted:What is the preferred language for viewing Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo? I think German for Aguirre and English for Fitzcarraldo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
Co-sine posted:Yeah, pretty much. The book is actually really good and creepily prophetic. I thought the movie was overly goofy even before I had read the novel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Blame Mad Max 2 for that. That kid worked in that film. Yea. And after watching Kickass last night, Hit Girl is the same kind of kid in a film. They're a kid, but they don't run to the nearest adult everytime they're in trouble, they don't get in trouble randomly to create tension and the other BS that movies always have when kids are in the film Ugh, the end of the book was really hackney though He runs a plane into the broadcast center while giving the finger I really hated it. The rest of the book goes from creepy and interesting to just plain stupid. I wonder if out of towners like myself try to go up to the sign, only to find out you can't. Though I'd rather go to Griffith Park, though thats probably crowded too. It's funny, LA consists of the sign, Sunset Strip, Mans Chinese, and Griffith Park. Oh and the Police HQ and the canals. Though do all diners in the city look the same, or does just every indie film shoot in the same sunset strip one? I'm pretty sure the Pulp Fiction and Mulholland Drive ones are the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 01:54
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Though do all diners in the city look the same, or does just every indie film shoot in the same sunset strip one? I'm pretty sure the Pulp Fiction and Mulholland Drive ones are the same. I'm not positive, but the diner in Mulholland Drive looks like a typical Denny's that they rented for the shoot. The diner in Pulp Fiction was the Hawthorne Grill:  It was torn down shortly after Pulp Fiction though, so it probably wasn't even standing when Mulholland Drive was shot. EDIT: The diner in Mulholland Drive is a place called Caesar's:  It was definitely a Denny's at some point. Glass Joe fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Jul 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
The diner in Mulholland Drive is Caesar's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
Co-sine posted:I couldn't find a specific thread for identifying films and I didn't think it was worth making a whole new thread about it. Just for posterity's sake: The identify a movie for me thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2177344
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I wonder if out of towners like myself try to go up to the sign, only to find out you can't. Though I'd rather go to Griffith Park, though thats probably crowded too. I find it hilarious that the Hollywood sign in what's left of a promotional Structure for a residential development Hollywoodland. I can imagine that people at the time hated that sign and fought to get it removed. (you are taling about the Hollywood sign right?) As a fun cultural note, there are no billboards in Hawaii, by law. The City Council's wives bought out the billboard companies and shut them down and then the council passes a law aginst billboards in 1927.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 06:42
|
|
|
kapalama posted:I find it hilarious that the Hollywood sign in what's left of a promotional Structure for a residential development Hollywoodland. Yes, but we all know what happened to the "land" part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 07:46
|
|
|
MajorB posted:What is the preferred language for viewing Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo? In Aguirre you don't get to hear Kinski in either language, even in German it's someone else dubbing his lines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
MajorB posted:What is the preferred language for viewing Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo? I've only heard the German for Fitzcaraldo, but for Aguirre I've watched both and can definitely say go with German. Even though both languages are dubbed, the English just sounds cheesy as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 22:38
|
|
|
Forgive me if this has already been asked (oh God, don't let it be on the last page or two), but can someone please tell me the difference between the rated and unrated versions of Hot Tub Time Machine? I bought the Blu-ray when it came out and just re-watched the theatrical version today after first watching the unrated version and didn't find much difference. The only differences I noticed are a longer shot of some breasts during the "Louder Than A Bomb" hot tub sequence, and an extra bit of dialogue between Lou and Nick before Nick goes up on stage to sing that went something like this (not exact): Lou: C'mon, Nick, what's the matter? Ashamed of being black and out of shape? Nick: What the gently caress is wrong with you, man? Lou: I'm just fuckin' with you man. This is a great time to be black. Ha, who am I kidding, this is our time. I don't see another black person in here. That is a hilarious moment, BTW because you can see Robinson try his best not to laugh when Corddry asks him that question, but is that what makes a SPECIAL EDITION UNRATED NOT SHOWN IN THEATERS disc nowadays? Some extra tits and a race joke? So getting back to the original question, is that all there is to the unrated version?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 23:13
|
|
|
You Are A Elf posted:Forgive me if this has already been asked (oh God, don't let it be on the last page or two), but can someone please tell me the difference between the rated and unrated versions of Hot Tub Time Machine? I bought the Blu-ray when it came out and just re-watched the theatrical version today after first watching the unrated version and didn't find much difference. The only differences I noticed are a longer shot of some breasts during the "Louder Than A Bomb" hot tub sequence, and an extra bit of dialogue between Lou and Nick before Nick goes up on stage to sing that went something like this (not exact): I haven't seen either version yet, but it's pretty common for studios to add a couple seconds of footage to the DVD release, then call it the "Unrated version you couldn't see in theaters!" or something stupid like that. They don't need to add much, or even add anything that would have changed the rating at all, just as long as they're adding footage that wasn't in the cut the MPAA initially rated. It's a sales tactic that happens all the time, especially for comedies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:I haven't seen either version yet, but it's pretty common for studios to add a couple seconds of footage to the DVD release, then call it the "Unrated version you couldn't see in theaters!" or something stupid like that. They don't need to add much, or even add anything that would have changed the rating at all, just as long as they're adding footage that wasn't in the cut the MPAA initially rated. It's a sales tactic that happens all the time, especially for comedies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
I googled, and found out that yes, BluRay disks are region coded, but does anyone know why they don't have a big 1 on the back of them in North America like dvds?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit, were you drunk enough that you didn't notice Arnold Swarzenegger was the protagonist? That probably would have helped you find out a lot easier than the electric clown (his name was Dynamo, incidentally, and he's the best overweight opera-singing electricity-themed villain ever). God, I love that movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I googled, and found out that yes, BluRay disks are region coded, but does anyone know why they don't have a big 1 on the back of them in North America like dvds? Because Blu-Ray discs are coded A,B,or C and some film companies (Warner, Universal and I think Paramount are the big ones) make their discs region free making it unnecessary to put them on there anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 00:46
|
|