|
FishBulb posted:Not really. Did you ever see an old SNL sketch called Sabra Price is Right? Tom Hanks was the host and it was during the Mike Meyers/Adam Sandler era. Zohan is like they took that sketch and added some stuff about secret agents and isreal/Palestine to it. Robert Smigel wrote it too. He works better with puppets and cartoons I guess. Nope, I'm not familiar with it, but thanks for the description. If I didn't have a general aversion to Adam Sandler I would have watched Zohan by now just for the hell of it, but he really bugs me (aside from Punch Drunk Love).
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
Tootsie should have won best picture the year it was released, and it did not. That's how undervalued comedies are. That was a great (not good) film. A much, much better film than Gandhi. (No snarky sarcasm from me. It sucks that Gandhi won best picture that year. Gandhi was good, but it does not come close to holding up the way Tootsie does. Tootsie was an almost perfect film. It even got a serviceable performance from Dabney Freaking Coleman. kapalama fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Apr 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 22:14
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
Are there examples of movies made by reasonable talent that were so bad that even the makers didn't really want to release them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Are there examples of movies made by reasonable talent that were so bad that even the makers didn't really want to release them? Yes. There are tons. Tons of movies get dumped to DVD with no fanfare or advertising because they are bad and and studios just want to pretend they didn't happen but they have to put them out eventually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Are there examples of movies made by reasonable talent that were so bad that even the makers didn't really want to release them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Clown_Cried
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Are there examples of movies made by reasonable talent that were so bad that even the makers didn't really want to release them? Manhattan. Woody Allen disliked his work in this film so much he offered to direct another film for United Artists for free if they kept "Manhattan" on the shelf for good. Also, Woody allen reshot September with different actors because he didn't like the first version.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 03:27
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Are there examples of movies made by reasonable talent that were so bad that even the makers didn't really want to release them? Happens fairly often that a director so wants to disassociate him or herself from a film that their name is removed from the credits and generally replaced with the pseudonym Alan Smithee
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 03:45
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Clown_Cried Were there a real life Grim Reaper, I would refuse him until I saw this movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
I figure there isn't a much better place to do this, so I thought I'd ask here. I just went to see the movie Win-Win and enjoyed it a whole lot. But, I think that I saw the boom microphone in the top right-hand corner of the shot during the scene when Kyle's mom comes to Mike's house for the first time. If this really happened, it would be a pretty amateurish mistake for such a well-made movie. I've searched around for someone else to acknowledge this, but haven't had any luck. And none of my friends have seen the movie yet. Anybody see the movie and see this happen? Or did I just catch a speck of something and mistake it for the boom?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
Mr.Garibaldi posted:I figure there isn't a much better place to do this, so I thought I'd ask here. Some movies are shot in what's called a "soft matte," meaning that there's poo poo at the top and bottom of the frame that is supposed to be cut off when the film is projected on a screen--but if the film is projected too low or too high you see light rigs and marks for people to stand on and stuff. I learned all this as a result of seeing Slither at a dollar theater a while ago, where I could see the microphone in about half the shots because the projector was obviously aligned very poorly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Some movies are shot in what's called a "soft matte," meaning that there's poo poo at the top and bottom of the frame that is supposed to be cut off when the film is projected on a screen--but if the film is projected too low or too high you see light rigs and marks for people to stand on and stuff. That's really interesting. I guess I had never considered that movies would be shot in a wider frame than you intended to actually put on the film in the final movie version. But then again, my only film experience came on college movies which were largely shot digitally (although I worked on one that did old-school film and cost a butt-load). What's interesting about Win-Win is that it only happened in this one scene. I guess the boom operator got tired on that day and hosed up, but it wasn't bad enough to be in the frame for anywhere other than the slightly divey theater in NYC I went to tonight. Thanks for the reply, I'm gonna check out soft matte and learn something tonight. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:Also, Woody allen reshot September with different actors because he didn't like the first version. Huh, I didn't know this. September is loving terrible, I wonder how bad the first version was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Huh, I didn't know this. September is loving terrible, I wonder how bad the first version was. Probably about as good as Manhattan is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 05:54
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Happens fairly often that a director so wants to disassociate him or herself from a film that their name is removed from the credits and generally replaced with the pseudonym Alan Smithee It should be mentioned that this name is now retired and they don't use it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 05:55
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Were there a real life Grim Reaper, I would refuse him until I saw this movie. I like to think that the Grim Reaper carries around a bunch of stuff like this just to satisfy the various nerds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:It should be mentioned that this name is now retired and they don't use it anymore. This brings up something I've been wondering about, I know Supernova was released with Thomas Lee credited as the director, but are there other movies, since Allen Smithee was retired, that use a pseudonym for the Director?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:This brings up something I've been wondering about, I know Supernova was released with Thomas Lee credited as the director, but are there other movies, since Allen Smithee was retired, that use a pseudonym for the Director? As far as I'm aware 'Alan Smithee' can't be used anymore so people need to use new names. I'm pretty sure Supernova was also directed by at least 2 classic directors with Walter Hill and Coppola working on it. Some films have other directors working on them uncredited. There's the rumour that either Joe Dante or writer David Koepp directed portions of 'The Lost World' while Spielberg was off prepping other things, which wouldn't surprise me one bit. Gore Verbinski ended up taking over duties on 'The Time Machine' because the original Director had a semi-breakdown (Weirdly enough it was supposed to be a Spielberg film as well, he'd done a lot of pre-production work on it before suddenly ditching it). 'The Bourne Identity' had a bunch of stuff in it directed by the producer Frank Marshall (Director of CONGO!) because Doug Liman was fired though still credited. Plus the film went on to be a huge hit so it all worked out for those involved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 09:41
|
|
|
On the subject of directors working on films uncredited, Paul Thomas Anderson helped Judd Apatow edit Funny People.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 09:48
|
|
|
Mr.Garibaldi posted:That's really interesting. I guess I had never considered that movies would be shot in a wider frame than you intended to actually put on the film in the final movie version. But then again, my only film experience came on college movies which were largely shot digitally (although I worked on one that did old-school film and cost a butt-load). A frame of 35mm film has an aspect ratio of 1.33:1, i.e. what you see on non-HD TVs. That's why TVs have that aspect ratio, basically, because it was like what movies were in. At some point studios stopped making movies with that aspect ratio, but not all filmmakers wanted to work with the more than 2:1 aspect ratios of "widescreen" movie formats, because it's tough to compose in. So they came up with formats like 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 to have a more squarish image, and to get those you shoot with 35mm and use a matte to cut off parts of the frame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 10:04
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I learned all this as a result of seeing Slither at a dollar theater a while ago, where I could see the microphone in about half the shots because the projector was obviously aligned very poorly. Actually, it's the job of the projectionist to make sure it framed properly. If the projector was aligned poorly the image would either be out of focus constantly, projected outside the screen area or both.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 16:18
|
|
|
Trump posted:Actually, it's the job of the projectionist to make sure it framed properly. If the projector was aligned poorly the image would either be out of focus constantly, projected outside the screen area or both. I meant that the projection was not aligned along the X-axis of the screen, as you have surmised.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:On the subject of directors working on films uncredited, Paul Thomas Anderson helped Judd Apatow edit Funny People. He didn't help enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:A frame of 35mm film has an aspect ratio of 1.33:1, i.e. what you see on non-HD TVs. That's why TVs have that aspect ratio, basically, because it was like what movies were in. At some point studios stopped making movies with that aspect ratio, but not all filmmakers wanted to work with the more than 2:1 aspect ratios of "widescreen" movie formats, because it's tough to compose in. So they came up with formats like 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 to have a more squarish image, and to get those you shoot with 35mm and use a matte to cut off parts of the frame. Up until the first sound films, films were what we call "full aperture". Basically, the entire area between the sprocket holes is exposed with image. This is exactly how Super-35 films are shot today. The early sound films required the side of the film to be trimmed to make room for the optical soundtrack, which reduced the frame to about 1.20:1. This lasted from 1927-1932. Some films were shot for this aspect ratio (M, Blackmail) while others were still shot full aperture with Vitaphone soundtrack in mind (All Quiet on the Western Front, Frankenstein). The aspect ratio was normalized to 1.37:1 by in-camera apertures, which meant thicker framelines on the top and bottom AND the area for the optical soundtrack. Some films were still shot full aperture, but with framing in mind for 1.37:1. Widescreen framing was instigated mainly by CinemaScope's 2.55:1 framing. Screens were made bigger to show CinemaScope, which meant 1.37:1 films would look a bit puny. American studios started to have films shot in at least 1.66:1 by late 1953. Some continued to make some films in 1.37:1 either due to preference or long production. Universal tried out 2:1 from 1953-1954 before switching to 1.85:1 for flat films. Warner Bros. usually stuck to 1.75:1. Paramount went right into 1.85:1 because of VistaVision, but some 1.66:1 films were made (like Rear Window). Fox had a lengthy period of shooting most films in CinemaScope, but the few flat films were usually 1.85:1. Even cheap studios were going to widescreen... no video editions are framed for it, but Ed Wood shot Plan 9 from Outer Space for 1.85:1. Even Three Stooges shorts were shot for 1.85:1 starting in 1954 (as were most of Columbia's output).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
I once read a book by Paul Slybert called "Final Cut", which is not the Heaven's Gate one but about the making of a smaller film called The Steagle that he kind of had taken away from him. Anyway, he talks about the early stage of putting together the deal for the film, and he says that one of the points that he wanted to negotiate for was shooting with a "hard matte", so that the top and bottom of the frame would be totally locked off and projectionists couldn't mess it up- apparently that's a more expensive method.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:The early sound films required the side of the film to be trimmed to make room for the optical soundtrack
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
csidle posted:Could you elaborate on this? What is an optical soundtrack? This thing. The wavy track on the right is the one that pushed out into the image area. The blue track on the left is SDDS, the track between the perforation is Dolby Digital and the morse like dots on the far right is syncing marks for DTS. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/35mm_film_audio_macro.jpg/300px-35mm_film_audio_macro.jpg Trump fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Apr 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
Wow, I didn't realize they'd started using every part of the film. That's neat. It's interesting how slowly sound evolved relative to movies as a whole. Stereo didn't become standard until Dolby came along in the late 70s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Stereo was sort of a standard for larger films in the 1950s. Nearly anything CinemaScope was at least 4-track stereophonic. Anything exhibited in 70mm would be 6-track, which is the case for all the blowups from 35mm films in the 1960s and 1970s. Stereo did require magnetic soundtracks either on the print itself or separately (which was done for some 1952-1955 films). CinemaScope, 70mm, and some regular 35mm films had this feature. Or there's some weird formats... newer 70mm prints in the 1990s and 2000s had DTS tracks with the timecode replacing the magnetic strips. There were a few 65mm films made around 1929-1930 that had mono optical sound. Of course, Fantasia used a special one-off system that was 4-track optical (a separate 35mm print with four side-by-side optical tracks).
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Stereo was sort of a standard for larger films in the 1950s. Nearly anything CinemaScope was at least 4-track stereophonic. Anything exhibited in 70mm would be 6-track, which is the case for all the blowups from 35mm films in the 1960s and 1970s. Yeah, but because of the magnetic thing, usually only the good first-run theaters could play those films in stereo. Dolby made it possible to do stereo optically, which made it more commonplace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
Say if I wanted to rescore a film, either live or as an additional recorded audio track, while keeping all the sound effect and dialogue in, how do I go about making score-less versions of a film to work with? Are there any DVDs with a no-score audio track, basically?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
rorty posted:Say if I wanted to rescore a film, either live or as an additional recorded audio track, while keeping all the sound effect and dialogue in, how do I go about making score-less versions of a film to work with? Unless you're rescoring a film made before 1927 I doubt you're going to find one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
rorty posted:Say if I wanted to rescore a film, either live or as an additional recorded audio track, while keeping all the sound effect and dialogue in, how do I go about making score-less versions of a film to work with? Well you could score a film without a score... Like Network.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
rorty posted:Say if I wanted to rescore a film, either live or as an additional recorded audio track, while keeping all the sound effect and dialogue in, how do I go about making score-less versions of a film to work with? There are DVD players that can do individual channels for 5.1 out, basically 5 or 6 outputs total. If you import only the center audio track it will contain pretty much just dialog and maybe a few sfx. Edit: I know this because I used to work in an audio post house that did alot of commercials for things like when USA would run Nutty Professor 2 or whatever. If the producer of the commercial wanted a line to use and there was too much music on the track, I'd have to run to the nearest Virgin store or Barnes and Noble and see if anyone had a copy of whatever movie on DVD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Universal tried out 2:1 from 1953-1954 before switching to 1.85:1 for flat films. That's interesting Creature from the Black Lagoon Revenge of the Creature both have a 2:1 aspect ratio. I ran across some others as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
Zogo posted:That's interesting What's even more interesting is that cinematographer Vittorio Storaro has been trying to bring back the 2:1 aspect ratio back as Univisium. In effect, he ended up reframing ALL the movies he worked on for Univisium. So all his beautiful compositions done in the Scope aspect ratio are loving ruined. THANKS A LOT, VITTORIO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:In effect, he ended up reframing ALL the movies he worked on for Univisium. So all his beautiful compositions done in the Scope aspect ratio are loving ruined. No, no, he always intended for his compositions to look like that, he just didn't have the technology at the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 13:28
|
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:There are DVD players that can do individual channels for 5.1 out, basically 5 or 6 outputs total. If you import only the center audio track it will contain pretty much just dialog and maybe a few sfx. This is what I was wondering, I just know nothing about DVD authoring. I did some research and it's a suprisingly easy process. It takes attention but it's not too hard to catch most of the foley stuff outside of the music if they're not already spread that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
Hello. I just saw Terminator Salvation for the first time. Was the ending a typical studio intrusion and request for a "happy" ending because that ending was just dumb. Im talking about the heart transplant. Otherwise the movie was OK. Not great. Not horrible. I dont think this needs to be spoilered anymore. (I posted this here because I figured the thread has been archived for awhile.) euphronius fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Apr 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Hello. I just saw Terminator Salvation for the first time. Was the ending a typical studio intrusion and request for a "happy" ending because that ending was just dumb. Im talking about the heart transplant. I don't know, but it was such a dull conclusion that I actually wished they had gone with the original draft where John Connor dies and they secretly graft his skin to Marcus so he can lead the resistance. As it is, everything goes back to the status quo at the end of Salvation, which basically defeats the point of Terminator. In all the previous films, even the lovely third one, the world has changed in some significant way by the end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
I was reading today that Dave Franco was starring in a new Fright Night movie. I thought, "hmm wonder if there's any relation?" how much more Franco can there be and why do they get to look like Greek gods
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 05:56
|
|
