|
headrest posted:This has probably been addressed, but I loving hate it: Are you watching on a TV with Motion Interpolation on?
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
headrest posted:This has probably been addressed, but I loving hate it: Probably piss-poor standard def upconverts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 07:11
|
|
|
Has there been any proper DVD releases (similiar to Sony's The Three Stooges) of Laurel & Hardy shorts? And if not, why not?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
What barriers would Netflix need to resolve in order to have commentary tracks for the movies? The framework is there; I can watch Demolition Man dubbed in Hindi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
Permission from studios and distributors, probably. Netflix already eats majorly into disc sales and I can only imagine what kind of damage would be done if they started added extras to streaming. I know at least one studio only lets Netflix rent out special barebones rental discs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Has there been any proper DVD releases (similiar to Sony's The Three Stooges) of Laurel & Hardy shorts? And if not, why not? If I had to guess, it's probably a licensing issue. Somebody owns the rights, but they may not know who. They know who, but the person doesn't want to sell or is holding out for more money. The studio that owns the rights may not see enough return on investment to bother with a special re-release. I've see a few L&H DVDs in the past few years, but not a collection of shorts, more a collection of movies, all seeming from different studios and distributors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Permission from studios and distributors, probably. Netflix already eats majorly into disc sales and I can only imagine what kind of damage would be done if they started added extras to streaming. I know at least one studio only lets Netflix rent out special barebones rental discs. Do movie studios really lose out because of Netflix? I mean, if a title is popular, Netflix will have to buy more DVDs to supply the demand, thus giving money to the studios. More people are likely to rent than buy a title.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
headrest posted:Do movie studios really lose out because of Netflix? I mean, if a title is popular, Netflix will have to buy more DVDs to supply the demand, thus giving money to the studios. More people are likely to rent than buy a title. Well, yeah, but this is about streaming, so there's no reason to buy additional copies. Netflix got the initial streaming rights for a song, but now that it's really taken off and contracts are being renewed the content providers are all jacking up their prices, which is why Netflix has been forced to raise subscription prices and now resort to this idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 04:24
|
|
|
headrest posted:Do movie studios really lose out because of Netflix? I mean, if a title is popular, Netflix will have to buy more DVDs to supply the demand, thus giving money to the studios. More people are likely to rent than buy a title. Yes. Netflix buys at a low, low, low DVD rate. Sometimes less than $2/copy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Yes. Netflix buys at a low, low, low DVD rate. Sometimes less than $2/copy. Does anyone have any idea how many copies Netflix buys of a movie, I imagine it varies depending on a movie but for example, it looks like they just got DVDs of The King's Speech, something that probably will be in high demand since it won a bunch of awards and seems like the kind of thing a lot of people would have waited for the DVD, is there anyway to get an idea of how many copies Netflix bought?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
I was watching the documentary about Elm Street, and (unless I've got my wires crossed, been a week since I watched it) they mentioned how in The Final Nightmare, they asked Nintendo for permission to use the Power Glove in the film. They said no, but they decided to use it anyway. Nintendo didn't bitch. And since I'm a Doctor Who fan (and for the record, I know this only because I'm a Doctor Who fan), there was a Dalek Cameo in Looney Tunes: Back in Action because Steve Martin, basically, said "that scene has to have a Dalek or I'm not doing the movie". Same thing happened: they did it, the owners didn't bitch. Are there any other cases of this? Someone asks to use a product in a film, they are told no, but do it anyway?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 06:36
|
|
|
Can we get Steve Martin to dress up as Doctor 1 for a special at some point, then? He's pretty much old enough. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Does anyone have any idea how many copies Netflix buys of a movie, I imagine it varies depending on a movie but for example, it looks like they just got DVDs of The King's Speech, something that probably will be in high demand since it won a bunch of awards and seems like the kind of thing a lot of people would have waited for the DVD, is there anyway to get an idea of how many copies Netflix bought? With the studios I'm sure it's some kind of set deal. Otherwise, you have to get a certain amount of people to add a movie to their queues and then they'll buy about 50 of them (on a spool, no cases) for about $2/unit. You might get an advance on licensing, you might not depending on how popular you are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 07:12
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Has there been any proper DVD releases (similiar to Sony's The Three Stooges) of Laurel & Hardy shorts? And if not, why not? There is finally a complete set of the short and features from the Hal Roach library coming in October. All are HD remastered, uncut, and have original sound and titles whenever possible. The only omissions are the handful of films now owned by Turner and MGM. It'll even have the Spanish and French reshoots of a few early talkies. Here it is on Amazon for $65: http://www.amazon.com/Laurel-Hardy-Essential-Collection--/dp/B005BYBZKY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316567454&sr=8-1
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
I just finished watching Rebecca (1940) and one thing struck me: At one point Mrs. Danvers shows our heroinethe painting, supposedly of Mr. de Winters ancestor. However, when Mrs. de Winter wear the dress from the painting, Mr. de Winters is distressed by this. Does this mean that the woman in the painting WAS Rebecca?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 02:25
|
|
|
no. The ancestor part is true. But Rebecca had already worn the same dress/costume the year before. And the husband is upset because it's not cool when your wife dies and a year later the new wife is wearing the same dress at another costume party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 10:39
|
|
|
Why are they starting to have major DVD/BR releases on Friday? Does it boost sales or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Maybe they're trying to make them events, you know, go to Best Buy and pick up yatata on Blu-Ray (and probably spend less than if you'd gone to the movies).
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
Does anyone here skip through to their favorite parts of a movie? I found that Crocodile Dundee II had been uploaded to youtube, and while the second half in Australia is pretty entertaining, there are about 5 minutes of movie that's worth the time to watch in the first half.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Does anyone here skip through to their favorite parts of a movie? An old buddy of mine was a wound-a-little-too-tight NCO from a long line of wound-a-little-too-tight career NCOs. His old man really loved the fuckin' Iron Eagle films. But he'd just fast forward to the parts with planes flying around and blowing up. So whenever anyone talks about doing this sort of thing, I always imagine them as middle-aged buzzcut guys, sitting in a bottomed-out easy chair with a can of lukewarm Natural Lite and a lovely cigar, fast-forwarding a VHS copy of Iron Eagle (1986) to the parts where Jason Gedrick is yelling `CHAPPPPPYYYYYYY!' a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
I fast-forward through Mulholland Drive till I get to the lesbian sex just to make David Lynch angry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:I fast-forward through Mulholland Drive till I get to the lesbian sex just to make David Lynch angry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
SubG posted:I like Lynch's films in general, and really dig Mulholland Dr., but gently caress mastering DVDs without chapters. First time I sat down to watch it there was a power outage, and I ended up having to FFD through about half of it just to get back to where I'd been. You know, exactly the viewing experience Lynch intended. Yeah it bugs me too. It bugs me when there aren't enough chapter breaks. Magnolia only has 8 of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
I've noticed James Cameron movies tend to have a huge amount of chapter breaks, like 50+.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
When you're watching tv shows on DVD it's a bit annoying to have the intro song at the start of every episode. Sopranos is great because it has a chapter break right after the song so it's really easy to skip. But The Wire. gently caress. The Wire has a long-rear end intro and you always have to fast forward through it and you end up missing a little bit and have to go back and ar akdslgjlbsnsass
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 10:47
|
|
|
Has CGI made films less expensive/easier to film (you can greenscreen a lot of sets and special effects) or has it just made them more expensive (a render farm can't be cheap)? I was wondering about this last night while watching Thor and it reminded me of the hoopla back in the day about The Fifth Element being like 15% CGI or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 13:57
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Does anyone here skip through to their favorite parts of a movie? I found that Crocodile Dundee II had been uploaded to youtube, and while the second half in Australia is pretty entertaining, there are about 5 minutes of movie that's worth the time to watch in the first half. On the other side of the coin one of my friends' mom's is notorious for fast forwarding for the "boring" parts of dialogue in movies. Then when the movie is over she complains that she didn't follow the story it at all, she really gets worked up about the movie being hard to understand. It's hysterical. csidle posted:When you're watching tv shows on DVD it's a bit annoying to have the intro song at the start of every episode. Sopranos is great because it has a chapter break right after the song so it's really easy to skip. But The Wire. gently caress. The Wire has a long-rear end intro and you always have to fast forward through it and you end up missing a little bit and have to go back and ar akdslgjlbsnsass My name is Michael Westen, I used to be a spy...
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:Has CGI made films less expensive/easier to film (you can greenscreen a lot of sets and special effects) or has it just made them more expensive (a render farm can't be cheap)? I was wondering about this last night while watching Thor and it reminded me of the hoopla back in the day about The Fifth Element being like 15% CGI or something. This is almost an impossible question to answer. One thing though, the render farms isn't what drive CGI prices up. Even though things are done in a computer, you still need a lot of people to make the stuff. You need basic model builders, riggers, texture artists, animators, different kinds of very nerdy specialists to do complicated lightening, clothing dynamics, surfaces etc. On large scale productions like say, Transformers, it's common for the effects studios to make completely new breakthroughs to achieve their goals, which again is very expensive. Another factor is the lack competition in the truly high end of CGI. This can add to the costs of effects driven movies. On the other hand, it's a lot simpler and cheaper for smaller scale productions to do cool stuff now. There's CGI everywhere in film and television now, it's just completely seamless and it's definitely keeping costs down. This is stuff like grading, background replacement/digital mattes and other kinds of scene extensions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
Trump posted:That's a pretty solid answer to the question - thanks. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:That's a pretty solid answer to the question - thanks. Also, to answer the question directly, CGI has opened huge options for filmmakers at almost all levels of the industry. See for instance Monsters, a movie built on a shoestring budget that includes effect shots that probably would have been considered pretty amazing 10-12 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
csidle posted:When you're watching tv shows on DVD it's a bit annoying to have the intro song at the start of every episode. Sopranos is great because it has a chapter break right after the song so it's really easy to skip. But The Wire. gently caress. The Wire has a long-rear end intro and you always have to fast forward through it and you end up missing a little bit and have to go back and ar akdslgjlbsnsass I know that some shows (Fringe) have an option on the DVD's to turn off the weekly story recap, which is really nice if you're marathoning the show.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Also, to answer the question directly, CGI has opened huge options for filmmakers at almost all levels of the industry. See for instance Monsters, a movie built on a shoestring budget that includes effect shots that probably would have been considered pretty amazing 10-12 years ago. I consider them pretty amazing for last year, considering it was one guy in his apartment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Does anyone here skip through to their favorite parts of a movie? I don't go to the trouble of putting a DVD in but if I see something on TV near a favorite part I might stop on the channel for a bit. Youtube also has thousands of prototypical "favorite scenes."
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
Hey everyone, something has been bugging me about comedies from the last decade or so. This can be applied strongly to TV as well as films, so bear with me. Whenever I watch something like a Judd Apatow film, or an episode of The Office (US) or Its Always Sunny... I get a sense the humor is not at all reactive. Its painfully obvious to me that the characters (not the actors) know exactly what they're going to say about two or three cues ahead of time. I noticed this same phenomenon in a few other series and films, so much so that it seems to be a trend. Does anyone have an idea where this brand of humor started? I don't mean to categorize everything together, I apologize if it seems like I'm doing that. I also have enjoyed some of the stuff I've viewed, it just sort of made me curious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
ServoMST3K posted:Hey everyone, something has been bugging me about comedies from the last decade or so. This can be applied strongly to TV as well as films, so bear with me. Whenever I watch something like a Judd Apatow film, or an episode of The Office (US) or Its Always Sunny... I get a sense the humor is not at all reactive. Its painfully obvious to me that the characters (not the actors) know exactly what they're going to say about two or three cues ahead of time. Just like bad camerawork can become a 'style', bad acting can become a style too. Just look at soap operas. I'm not sure where this trend you refer to started, but I agree it's certainly there. And most likely TV's fault. It's a very 'sitcom' way of doing things. The acting on the british Office is so great, and the acting on the american Office is so terrible. I also hate the acting on Community, Parks and Rec, Big Bang Theory, et al. I think for a lot of people, if a joke is good, they let the bad acting slide. Just like with horror or sci-fi, if the kills are good, the bad acting is ignored.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
ServoMST3K posted:Hey everyone, something has been bugging me about comedies from the last decade or so. This can be applied strongly to TV as well as films, so bear with me. Whenever I watch something like a Judd Apatow film, or an episode of The Office (US) or Its Always Sunny... I get a sense the humor is not at all reactive. Its painfully obvious to me that the characters (not the actors) know exactly what they're going to say about two or three cues ahead of time. If a lot of extras on DVD's are taken into account I'd say Anchorman started it or at least what sticks in my mind. Like the actor just keeps saying a punchline over and over in different ways for every scene then in editing they cherry pick the best lines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
ServoMST3K posted:Its painfully obvious to me that the characters (not the actors) know exactly what they're going to say about two or three cues ahead of time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
Actually, I suppose there are elements of this sort of timing in Marx Brothers films. For some reason it seems so far removed from the "reality" of the fictional universe in something like The Office or even Anchorman. I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but if the intent was to emulate some sort of idea from a Vaudeville routine in, say, Its Always Sunny... then the execution falls flat on its face. There's just something about newer comedies that goes completely against what I've seen in countless genre pieces from the 90s and 80s. I would love to flesh this out further, and thanks to everyone who responded thus far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
A lot of the time the reason comedies come out like that is because of the editing, particularly with single camera shows. You can cut down on gaps between dialogue, make everything snappier and clean. Problem is, most of the time these shows focus too hard on perfection and the spontaneous feel of comedy can get lost in the process. When everything is being filmed one shot at a time, you don't really have much room for improv, except maybe fiddling around with punchlines or actors improvising jokes, but even then it's edited right into the show because of its separate take, right in between the other takes all perfect and all unpredictability removed. Nobody skips a beat, nobody flubs a line but recovers it, nobody gets to improv and change entire parts of a scene (most of the time). If you wanna see what I mean in practice, check out the live stage show 30 Rock did. With multi camera stage shows like The Big Bang Theory, they rehearse like loving crazy and tend to just read what was on the script. I don't think naturalistic acting and more improv based sitcoms can fit in with what audiences tend to expect. Brilliant shows like It's Always Sunny get their day on cable, which is cool, but it wouldn't be setting the networks on fire. Oh man, Sunny's season 7 opener was loving amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Editing is a big part of it. But I also think an element of it is "This is a comedy, make the characters wacky!". Even though it's usually funnier when the characters are more realistic, since they are more relatable. And I think the cause of this is largely due to fear that some of the audience won't get the joke. Subtle humor is usually funnier, but studios/networks would rather have 90% of the audience find something mildly funny than have half of it think something is hilarious. And they might have started doing this more due to a lot of shows no longer using laugh tracks. Another part of it is actors generally don't want to be the butt of the joke or the straight man. So people who should be playing things straight will sometimes exaggerate everything and act "zany" to show that they are in on the joke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 16:04
|
|