|
So, basically, "Archer"?
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
In the Bond books you often see him in his office, but usually not for long and usually not for any important plot points. For that matter, Bond's house and matronly housekeeper are also only ever featured in the books.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
Just to weigh in on the ADR chat, it happens a LOT more than I ever expected. I'm a sound editor and I actually spent the last 2 years doing ADR for a mid-budget tween live-action series. My only job was fixing all the dialogue, which included prepping and recording the ADR. And I can tell you, in a 22 minute show we averaged about 75-100 lines of ADR which included re-recording poor/mumbled production audio, voice-over recording, and occasionally lines that got added after the fact. Also a lot of "noises" such as grunting during fights and various "efforts". Yes it's often obvious, but it really depends on the ability of the actor more than anything else. It's not an easy thing to do; this is the first time they've ever seen the footage at all, it's weeks if not months after they originally played that character, they're standing in a tiny room by themselves and they also have to match the lipsync perfectly while still getting the right emotion into the performance. Not to mention how difficult it is to match the perspective of the microphone and trying to make that one tiny room sound the same as an infinite number of other locations. Of course sometime when the lipsync doesn't match it's not even actually ADR, it's production audio from a different take that matches the perspective better, or where the actor spoke more clearly. That's always the ideal and it's why it would take me a full 6 days start to finish to do the dialogue track for a single episode. I'd guess that for every line I marked down for ADR there was about 4 others that I was able to fix just by subbing in a different take. If you're really curious about your ability to tell, here's a couple clips you can try to figure out which ones are ADR'd or not (besides the obvious one listed on-screen). Of course I find whenever I watch youtube that there seems to be sync issues anyway, so it's not exactly a perfect system, but what the hell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp85gXR9fro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoE5EkXBcus
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
morestuff posted:This is a consistent problem with the franchise. Have Barbara Broccoli call me when the movies are slower-paced and give painstaking background on everything James Bond does. One of the things I liked best about Casino Royale is that it was the fist movie in the series in a really long time that was more a spy movie that starred James Bond, rather than being a James Bond Movie. It really would be good to slow things down a bit, and actually make things suspenseful instead of just action, action, action. Take some of the best best Bond movies, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and their junior partner, Dr. No. They would seem funereal in pace compared to many of the newer movies, but they were often genuinely suspenseful and were much less one-note than later efforts. Personally I've got really high hopes for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, and I am really skeptical of the next Bond movie to top it. I loathed Quantum of Solace.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
Bond is never going to "top" Tinker, Tailor in that sense. Movie Bond is an action hero. He has more in common with Indiana Jones than Smiley. Hell, even Batman as the world's greatest detective doesn't do much detectiving in the movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
KasioDiscoRock posted:If you're really curious about your ability to tell, here's a couple clips you can try to figure out which ones are ADR'd or not (besides the obvious one listed on-screen). Of course I find whenever I watch youtube that there seems to be sync issues anyway, so it's not exactly a perfect system, but what the hell. Yeah, that first one is pretty obvious ADR. The second feels natural, but if this is a trick and it's also ADR, it's a good job. Also, thanks for the insider post. I've always wondered just how much grueling work goes into this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Yeah, that first one is pretty obvious ADR. The second feels natural, but if this is a trick and it's also ADR, it's a good job. You weren't specific so I'm not sure who you think is obvious ADR but the entire scene is ADR. As for the second clip, every single line of the girl's is ADR. She was always really good at it
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
In Jurassic Park, what "mistake" did Dennis Nedry make to get himself in financial troubles?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:In Jurassic Park, what "mistake" did Dennis Nedry make to get himself in financial troubles? They never mention it in either the book or movie, but it could be anything from an out-of-control gambling habit to medical bills he's responsible for after getting hosed by Hammond's insurance to trying to raise money for a sex change. The idea is simply that he needs money (bad) and has already tried to get it out of Hammond who is sick of hearing about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
Since Hammond is on him about it so much don't you think he must have broke something in the park?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Since Hammond is on him about it so much don't you think he must have broke something in the park? It's possible, but he seems less to be bugging Nedry about it and more "Yeah, I get it, you need money. gently caress off, please."
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 05:17
|
|
|
His line to Nedry was "I don't blame people for their mistakes...but I do ask that they pay for them." Which I guess could still mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:His line to Nedry was "I don't blame people for their mistakes...but I do ask that they pay for them." Which I guess could still mean anything. That's true, and a good point, but there's also a line about "your problems, not mine." I took it all to be very dismissive, but they left it open to interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
I never assumed those two lines had anything to do with each other. They both point to what a gently caress up Nedry is and to further cement that he's clearly only there because he's the only one that knows how half the park's systems work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 10:56
|
|
|
I just saw the movie Moon, and I was wondering if my copy cut off the end part. It ended rather abruptly with one of the clones flying into the earth atmosphere and you could hear radio chatter and someone saying something about 'hes a maniac or an illegal immigratn Thanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
Nope, that's it. Stop pirating films
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Nope, that's it. I cant believe how awesome the movie was. Maybe the first movie I watched twice in a row.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
I actually really hated that ending, and I assume that was included based on studio pressure for some kind of resolution. It's better left ambiguous. And I have no idea if this merits a spoiler tag, but better safe than sorry!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
The director (what's his face, Zowie Bowie) has said he plans on having some sort of final resolution to the plight of the clones as a very small part (not much more than a cameo/aside) in his next film (or, whenever he does his Bladerunner-esque thing - he did Source Code after saying this.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
Akuma posted:The director (what's his face, Zowie Bowie) has said he plans on having some sort of final resolution to the plight of the clones as a very small part (not much more than a cameo/aside) in his next film (or, whenever he does his Bladerunner-esque thing - he did Source Code after saying this.) They get into a fight with Major Tom
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:They get into a fight with Major Tom Hell no, if we're going with a film about a dystopian future, I demand my loving Ziggy Stardust!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
Sobatchja Morda posted:Hell no, if we're going with a film about a dystopian future, I demand my loving Ziggy Stardust! I've been saying for a while now, Duncan Jones should really film a $100 million sci-fi Ziggy Stardust rock musical film produced by Bowie. e: Ideally with Tilda Swinton as Ziggy. 
feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Aug 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Why did movies look so muddy in the 70's? We had high contrast color movies in the decades before, but then for some reason a lot of 70's movies just look blurry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
Budgets and style. Suddenly everything was about nature and nostalgia, or gritty reality. There was also a trend towards youthful directors who were breakin' da rulez, so everyone was imitating the vérité style in various ways. Soft focus became ridiculously popular so like half the films that came out between 1970 and 1979 were shot with women's underwear draped over the lens. The 20s were in, rustic country living was in, grassroots movements were in, it was just a big recipe for disaster. I'm sure there are other reasons too but those are the ones I've observed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Soft focus became ridiculously popular so like half the films that came out between 1970 and 1979 were shot with women's underwear draped over the lens. This gives new meaning to the term "Panty shot". What other crazy poo poo do people get up to with lenses? Aside from the obvious "smear Vaseline" trick?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
Well it was a bit of a joke I think. And speaking of what I think, I doubt they actually smeared vaseline on the lenses, right? Everything was just filters and low f-stops, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
It wasn't (or shouldn't have been) directly on the lens but Vaseline and similar products were certainly used on filters, and I'm sure actual pantyhose were used at some point but yes, lots of stupid hazy nostalgia filters and low f-stops (or really grainy film).
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
There's also the trick of pre-exposing film to dull the colors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
OK, so the wife and I just watched the original TRON last night. What? I just want to make sure that I didn't miss anything, and that all problems were caused by the writing, and not my lack of perception. (The incorrect terminology from 1982 didn't help either). Flynn was a programmer/game designer that worked for the EVIL company (and what the gently caress did they do? Business software? Games? Military laser work?) and designed three fantastically popular games. The games were stolen from him by the sleazeoid 80's guy, who took credit and subsequently fired Flynn. Meanwhile in plot B, supercomputer Master Control, a former chess program, has been absorbing various smaller programs into its systems and growing more powerful. It communicates with sleazy 80's guy, and together they run the business. Evilly. Flynn, his ex-girlfriend and his frenemy have all designed various programs which will infiltrate Master Control, hunting for incriminating evidence. Flynn, being equal parts programmer, hacker and whiz kid, sneaks into the building and uses the only unmanned terminal with a laser pointing at it to try and retrieve a file. He is then shot into the mainframe, where he discovers an amazing world inside the computer. In there, we find that all the programs look like their programmers, and that they fight to the death for the entertainment of Saark and Master Control. Flynn escapes the battle arena with TRON, the program created by his frenemy. Together, they sneak across the digital landscape, using the superpowers given to Flynn because he is a user (or really, would any human probably have the same success?) and have a showdown with Master Control. The movie ends with Master Control being defeated, (taken offline?) Flynn returned to the real world, and a printout from a dot matrix printer, 3 lines long that somehow prove that evil guy stole the games from Flynn. Flynn becomes a yuppie and the CEO of the company, and engages in the steepest ascent of a helicopter I may have seen in a movie. Everyone lives happily ever after. Did I miss anything?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
What, did someone tell you that TRON was a good movie or something? I mean, TRON is awesome, but it's not really a good movie. Which is why Legacy was such a faithful sequel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
1970s films may look muddy because film elements produced at the time are being used for video transfers. There's a tendency for them to look vastly better when original negatives or newly made 35mm positives are made for transfer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
Barometer posted:This gives new meaning to the term "Panty shot". What other crazy poo poo do people get up to with lenses? Aside from the obvious "smear Vaseline" trick? Or to touch briefly on lens effects; long lenses will flatten the sense of perspective, cleverly used in Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood".  To reduce the risk of shooting the actor with real arrows a long lens was used to make everything appear closer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
Speaking of Kurosawa, would anyone be interested in a "movie genealogy" thread? I'm always fascinated to find out where movies copied aspects of their story and where they got inspiration for some of their iconic images. One of the goals of such a thread would to be to find films as temporally close together as possible so that everyone won't just point to Kurosawa and skip over several movies in between... Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Aug 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It wasn't (or shouldn't have been) directly on the lens but Vaseline and similar products were certainly used on filters, and I'm sure actual pantyhose were used at some point but yes, lots of stupid hazy nostalgia filters and low f-stops (or really grainy film). Surprise, but pantyhose are still used today. As I was told by an ASC cinematographer once, "Black Dior pantyhose are the best for using when lighting a beautiful woman." He was a bit old school, but yeah, some DPs use netting over a filter to diffuse the image.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 06:38
|
|
|
ogopogo posted:Surprise, but pantyhose are still used today. As I was told by an ASC cinematographer once, "Black Dior pantyhose are the best for using when lighting a beautiful woman." It was used in the two recent episodes of Fringe that were set in flashacks to 1985, party to create a hazy nostalgic feeling and partly to let John Noble play his regular character 25 years younger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
Before King's Speech, were there other films where they had two concurrent versions of the same film playing, with different MPAA ratings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Before King's Speech, were there other films where they had two concurrent versions of the same film playing, with different MPAA ratings? Saturday Night Fever had both an R and a PG release, and I'm almost certain that they overlapped, since theater runs were much, much longer in those days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 12:26
|
|
|
Wow, different times... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saturday_night_fever_pg_version_movie_poster.jpg
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Wasn't there an alternate version of Passion of the Christ out with less gore? Not sure if it was rated differently though or at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Wasn't there an alternate version of Passion of the Christ out with less gore? Not sure if it was rated differently though or at the same time. It got a re-release a few months after its initial run with some of the gore edited out, but the MPAA still wanted to give it an R rating so Gibson released it unrated. I don't think the releases overlapped.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 01:19
|
|
