|
This is something I never thought about until I saw the a clip from the music video for MGMT's Kids, which features some monsters/aliens that are gathered around a baby in a crib. How do they get kids that young to cry in a humane way for movies, TV shows, or music videos? I mean, babies cry a lot for various reasons, but those reasons aren't good as far as I know, and usually a parent's first instinct would be to help the kid out and get him to stop crying. So how do they get a kid to cry without being jerks, and if they are jerks, what methods do they use that are not frowned upon by the rest of the world?
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
ClydeUmney posted:Yes. If you have an account there (it's free), there's a checkbox under preferences to go back to the old page design. I love you forever. The new layout is atrocious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2010 05:35
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
Superrodan posted:So how do they get a kid to cry without being jerks, and if they are jerks, what methods do they use that are not frowned upon by the rest of the world? You have never met any parents whoring their kids for beauty pagents, acting modeling etc, I guess. There is no humanity in these parents in any conceivable sense of the word. The reason that child actors in the US (I have no idea what it is like in other countries) end up as wastes of human beings is because the people that are supposed to have their best interests at heart are completely non-functional human beings, and they are entirely willing to whore their children out for monetary gain. The child actors/singers I have personally known have all ended up in 'better off dead' circumstances: drug addicts, in jail, multiple suidice attempts, homeless, etc. kapalama fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Sep 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2010 05:42
|
|
|
Superrodan posted:I mean, babies cry a lot for various reasons, but those reasons aren't good as far as I know, and usually a parent's first instinct would be to help the kid out and get him to stop crying. Ever see Bruno's baby audition scene? I don't know how they actually get babies to cry, but based on the horrible people in that scene I'm sure there are plenty of parents that don't give a drat about how they get the kid to cry as long as the kid gets the part. Here's part of it anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eePO_7pcw8
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2010 05:44
|
|
|
Does anyone want to explain what the message of Funny Games was meant to be, and whether it accomplished what it was meant to?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Does anyone want to explain what the message of Funny Games was meant to be, and whether it accomplished what it was meant to? Horror movies are hosed up and you're a bad person for wanting to watch them, so heres one where the bad guys win and win and then when it seems like they aren't going to win they win anyways eat dick horror movie fan. I don't know if it was a successful film or not you kind of have to decide that for yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 03:00
|
|
|
Isn't it pretty common in horror movies to have the big "The End...or is it?!" ending? I have not seen Funny Games so I don't know the particulars, but I was thinking about how the Halloween/Friday the 13th etc. etc. types of movies always leave the door open for follow ups. The bad guys always win, it seems.  "Behind the Mask; the rise of Leslie Vernon" was (I think) a fantastic take on the genre, and followed the formula perfectly. I wish there was a sequel in the works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 03:18
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:Horror movies are hosed up and you're a bad person for wanting to watch them, so heres one where the bad guys win and win and then when it seems like they aren't going to win they win anyways eat dick horror movie fan. Put in slightly different words, one of the things that's immediately noteworthy about the film(s) is that Haneke intentionally deprives the audience of any sort of catharsis. I'm not opposed to this in principle as a narrative conceit---one of the reasons why Romero's Night of the Living Dead (1968) is so memorable is because it does something similar. But the fact that the genre conventions involve some sort of catharsis contradicts Haneke's apparent thesis---that horror audiences are implicitly on the side of the bad guys and are only in it for the sadistic violence. The fact that Haneke needs to violate the `formula' to illustrate his point seems to me to be a weakness in the narrative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
I probably misspoke by calling it horror it isn't really a horror movie its just a violent nihilistic movie that doesn't relent and cheats to take away catharsis from the audience. Its also features things that you almost never see in a movie. Its an odd film, not my favorite Haneke or anything. Its just him berating the audience the media and society for enjoying violence. edit: your post was not there when I made this post
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 03:31
|
|
|
Yeah, Funny Games actually hosed with me more than most movies do. The main antagonist keeps telling the audience that he's going to win if you keep watching and it's almost like he is daring you to just stop watching, to change channels, to turn off the DVD player. Because thats the only way to stop him...but you keep watching and in the knowing look he gives the audience in the last shot of the movie basically tells us how bad we should feel for being there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 03:54
|
|
|
Barometer posted:"Behind the Mask; the rise of Leslie Vernon" was (I think) a fantastic take on the genre, and followed the formula perfectly. I wish there was a sequel in the works. I felt it was worth a watch, but it was not perfect. The switching between documentary style and traditional cinema was great, but it was a little too twee and ironic for my tastes. Anyone in CineD could have come up with every idea in the first 2/3rds of the movie with the hook "What if all the 80s slasher movies were real? How would a hipster explain and justify them?" Also while I don't want to knock it for this, but it should be noted that the budget for this movie was obviously cruelly low even by direct-to-DVD horror standards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 04:02
|
|
|
That's a pretty novel approach. Daring the audience to stop watching, and assumably to tell others not to see your movie. Crazy. Also, though, it seems like I would take it as a challenge. When Irreversible was loaned to me, my friend said it was crafted to make you feel ill and so I sat there like an idiot daring the movie to make me feel ill! Instead (ending spoiler!) I just felt really uncomfortable during the rape scene and sad at the end that they hosed up their revenge. I was looking at his imdb page and I don't think I have seen any of this guys stuff. Any reccomendations (Anyone) as to what his "better" movies are? Time of the Wolf looked promising.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 04:08
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Yeah, Funny Games actually hosed with me more than most movies do. The main antagonist keeps telling the audience that he's going to win if you keep watching and it's almost like he is daring you to just stop watching, to change channels, to turn off the DVD player. Because thats the only way to stop him...but you keep watching and in the knowing look he gives the audience in the last shot of the movie basically tells us how bad we should feel for being there. I guess I beat him then since I started watching it on cable, got too creeped out by it and stopped.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 04:08
|
|
|
Barometer posted:That's a pretty novel approach. Daring the audience to stop watching, and assumably to tell others not to see your movie. Crazy. Also, though, it seems like I would take it as a challenge. When Irreversible was loaned to me, my friend said it was crafted to make you feel ill and so I sat there like an idiot daring the movie to make me feel ill! Instead (ending spoiler!) I just felt really uncomfortable during the rape scene and sad at the end that they hosed up their revenge. Cache Is in my opinion, one of the best movies of the last decade but I really love Haneke's style and ambiguity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 04:23
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I felt it was worth a watch, but it was not perfect. The switching between documentary style and traditional cinema was great, but it was a little too twee and ironic for my tastes. Anyone in CineD could have come up with every idea in the first 2/3rds of the movie with the hook "What if all the 80s slasher movies were real? How would a hipster explain and justify them?" Also while I don't want to knock it for this, but it should be noted that the budget for this movie was obviously cruelly low even by direct-to-DVD horror standards. FishBulb posted:Cache Is in my opinion, one of the best movies of the last decade but I really love Haneke's style and ambiguity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
I really liked Funny Games, but moreso as an experiment. It's pretty terrifying at times, thanks to the total nightmarish lack of "control" that the audience has, and which they usually have in a film like this. I think that's what makes it so unnerving, at least to me, that complete lack of control, as the only control you have, like someone else said, is to turn the film off. You can expect in a slasher film for it to come out one of two ways, but somehow Haneke took a weird, hidden third route that totally shits all over the first two. The only failing, really, is that its message sailed over the heads of its target audience, rendering it kind of useless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 05:53
|
|
|
I don't really care about whether Haneke is trying to "punish" or "trick" horror fans, maybe because I'm not a big horror fan. I just like (in a manner of speaking) Funny Games for how powerful it is. Few films have made me feel so awful. As for other Haneke, I thought The Seventh Continent and The White Ribbon were very good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
also Cache is pretty good
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 07:10
|
|
|
I think Cache is a great film but I think it's nearly impossible to derive any actual entertainment value from it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 07:40
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It's pretty terrifying at times, thanks to the total nightmarish lack of "control" that the audience has, and which they usually have in a film like this. I think that's what makes it so unnerving, at least to me, that complete lack of control, as the only control you have, like someone else said, is to turn the film off. On the other hand I thought that, for example, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) was creepy in a very engaging way for more or less exactly the reasons you list---the relentless violence was deprived of the traditional slasher flick narrative arc as a reference point for the audience to make sense of it all. I also thought that the complete lack of any sort of overt (and intrusive) theatrical trappings really helped the narrative, in exactly the same way I thought they hurt Funny Games. There's this sequence in Henry where Otis has fallen asleep while watching a video he and Henry had made of them murdering a family (the audience first sees the murder from the point of view of the camcorder). I think this makes more or less the same point Haneke so laboriously makes in Funny Games, while at the same time not relying on a bunch of fourth-wall-breaking nonsense to do it. SubG fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Sep 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 07:50
|
|
|
I thought Cache was a bad, pretentious, misanthropic, heavy-handed, and obvious film, albeit well-made. I haven't seen White Ribbon, but I bought a copy recently fairly inexpensively, but I do think that there is something slightly Emperor's New clothes about Haneke. (I don't hate him like I hate Von Trier though). VVVV Obvious and heavy-handed in that the symbolism hits you on the head with a sledgehammer. it's pretentious because it is so evidently trying to 'say something'. YMMV. This is probably better suited to the general chat thread. therattle fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Sep 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 12:28
|
|
|
What is pretentious about Cache? It is fairly heavy handed but that pretty much goes with the territory with Haneke. I don't even know what obvious means in this context either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 13:12
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Does anyone want to explain what the message of Funny Games was meant to be, and whether it accomplished what it was meant to? It's about how people in situations of danger turn to others for help rather than trying to fight for themselves. Throughout the fim there are moments when the parents could have gotten away to safety, but instead the call the police and wait for help rather than leaving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 14:31
|
|
|
therattle posted:This is probably better suited to the general chat thread. There's a movie general chat thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
kapalama posted:There's a movie general chat thread? It's a general chat thread in which movies are, on occasion, talked about. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3336350 Go wild.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
SubG posted:See, I thought the slasher elements really fell flat precisely because it was such an obvious pedagogical device. I stopped being able to take the characters seriously as characters as soon as it became apparent that they were simply sock puppets for Haneke. This reminds me that I need to do a big post on Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer someday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
therattle posted:It's a general chat thread in which movies are, on occasion, talked about. Well it might help if the thread actually had a descriptive title so newbies/people who don't regularly read the forum know what the hell is going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Well it might help if the thread actually had a descriptive title so newbies/people who don't regularly read the forum know what the hell is going on. That title is descriptive as hell, I'll have you know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Well it might help if the thread actually had a descriptive title so newbies/people who don't regularly read the forum know what the hell is going on. I'm a regular reader of CineD but I subconsciously ignore all sticked threads. When I finally noticed the general discussion I had no idea what it was supposed to be, and when I ventured in I still couldn't figure it out, thinking that I missed a reference or it was a continuation from an older thread which had lost its context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 20:37
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:I'm a regular reader of CineD but I subconsciously ignore all sticked threads. When I finally noticed the general discussion I had no idea what it was supposed to be, and when I ventured in I still couldn't figure it out, thinking that I missed a reference or it was a continuation from an older thread which had lost its context. It's not really a general discussion thread anyways it's just a bunch of regulars goofing off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
General movie question having to do with the physical movies themselves: how come, in theaters, a dot appears in the corner of the frame at the end of almost every scene? Is that for the projectionist, or a sound editor, or what? I've also noticed that movies in theaters tend to have scenes that end with a second or two of a lingering shot of silence, but on DVD the same movie will have more efficient cuts. Can anyone narrow down what causes this? vv Thank you! vv Space Fish fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Sep 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
Space Fish posted:General movie question having to do with the physical movies themselves: how come, in theaters, a dot appears in the corner of the frame at the end of almost every scene? Is that for the projectionist, or a sound editor, or what? I've also noticed that movies in theaters tend to have scenes that end with a second or two of a lingering shot of silence, but on DVD the same movie will have more efficient cuts. Can anyone narrow down what causes this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cue_mark
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
That's a cue mark, and it's for the projectionist (Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds uses them as a plot point, actually). They come at the end of a reel, so usually it's about every ten minutes, and there are two, a "warning" mark, then the reel-change mark a couple seconds later. You can also use them to tell whether the film is being projected anamorphically (if it's a squished oval), not that has anything to do with anything, really. edit: beaten!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
A SHAMEFUL CAT posted:NeuroticErotica mentioned something about Troublemaker not being a place where you want to work. Is RR a boss from hell or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
Space Fish posted:General movie question having to do with the physical movies themselves: how come, in theaters, a dot appears in the corner of the frame at the end of almost every scene? Is that for the projectionist, or a sound editor, or what? I've also noticed that movies in theaters tend to have scenes that end with a second or two of a lingering shot of silence, but on DVD the same movie will have more efficient cuts. Can anyone narrow down what causes this? Why haven't you seen Fight Club? Go watch Fight Club.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Well it might help if the thread actually had a descriptive title so newbies/people who don't regularly read the forum know what the hell is going on. Fine, I've changed it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
I was Watching Ironman 2, and I started to wonder when it's a suit and when it's an CGI effect. Obviously flying and fighting is all CGI, but obviously when he's in Randy's Donuts it's an actual suit. Is it maybe when you can see RDJ's face its a costume, when you can't its CGI? Also, why the hell did people think this movie was too talky? There's tons of action, and there's probably about as much talking as Iron Man 1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2010 04:31
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Also, why the hell did people think this movie was too talky? There's tons of action, and there's probably about as much talking as Iron Man 1. My problem wasn't really with the amount of talking, just that Iron Man 2 was crammed with pointless bullshit talking and the first one at least made a passing attempt at character development.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
Iron Man 2 will always be dead to me simply because it wastes Mickey Rourke. I don't want to see him typing on a laptop for half of the movie, I want him whipping more cars in half.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2010 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I was Watching Ironman 2, and I started to wonder when it's a suit and when it's an CGI effect. Obviously flying and fighting is all CGI, but obviously when he's in Randy's Donuts it's an actual suit. My understanding is there's actually parts of the suit that are always CG. On set he wore sort of a pared-down version of the suit that allowed for more mobility. I remember seeing footage of Downey Jr. sitting in the Donut sign and the actual suit he wore covered maybe most of his arms, half his legs, and had sort of a chestplate thing but the rest was just black leotard. The plating was almost entirely CGI using the actual costume as a guideline.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2010 17:49
|
|
