|
Jack Gladney posted:There's a pan-and-scan VHS of Ghostbusters that pans around depending on who's talking, like if all four of them were walking somewhere and talking and Dan Akroyd was cropped out of the frame but started talking, the whole scene would pan over to include him and cut out Ernie Hudson. It's the closest a film has ever come to giving me motion sickness. That's where the "pan" in pan-and-scan comes from.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
I also want to say that they squished the image in that scene so that it wasn't so pan&scan but then it just looked like gravity was closing in on their sides.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I was about to say that the LOTR extended cuts are better, but I think the only time I can think of where this undoubtedly the case is Return of the King. Really? I've always heard from others (and hold the opinion myself) that RotK is the weakest of the extended movies. I find FotR to be the strongest because it fleshes out a lot of detail of scenes who's purpose was to move the story along while RotK had a very kitchen-sink feel to the whole thing. The confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King didn't have any impact on anything but ended Gandalf's character arc on a weird down note and the Mouth of Sauron was cut strangely. There's a great scene in there somewhere but it's all chopped up and truncated. Two Towers was kind of a wash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
What movie originated the drop to your knees and shout 'no!' at the heavens?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 10:21
|
|
|
I think that cliches a lot older than cinema.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
MisterGBH posted:What movie originated the drop to your knees and shout 'no!' at the heavens? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBAmLm_jYyY
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 13:58
|
|
|
In About Schmidt you see a theater during a montage that is playing Sideways. Sideways came out in '04, About Schmidt came out in '02. That's a little strange, right? Is that some sort of inside joke?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:I think that cliches a lot older than cinema. True- King Lear is a good early example- but cinema did add the " dizzying overhead shot" that makes it so great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:In About Schmidt you see a theater during a montage that is playing Sideways. Sideways came out in '04, About Schmidt came out in '02. That's a little strange, right? Is that some sort of inside joke? It must be, the same person made both films.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:It must be, the same person made both films.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
I watched "New Rose Hotel" recently, while quite tired. It was excellent for much of the length, with Walken in his most Walkeny performance. I started to really fade in the last half hour, so could someone who's seen it tell me is the last half hour or so after Walken's death, entirely composed of Defoe sitting in the hotel room reminiscing about what has happened? Or did I miss something? As I said, I was pretty out of it and have since had to return the DVD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
I've been meaning to watch Metropolis for some time now. I was wondering if there is any version I should watch first. "The Complete Metropolis" is on Netflix and would normally be my first choice but I just noticed that Giorgio Moroder presents Metropolis will be showing at a local theater soon. I'll still probably watch both but is there one you guys think I should see first?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
I'd say you should probably watch the original first, to hear the music it was originally played to, and the tones that they originally set out to make. Then listen to the awesome soundtrack of the Moroder one, and compare and contrast the two tones. (Note: I have not seen Metropolis, I'm just going off of what seems like the correct course of action)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2011 06:36
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:I'd say you should probably watch the original first, to hear the music it was originally played to, and the tones that they originally set out to make. And if you end up not liking it, then you saved cash on the Moroder tickets and 2 1/2 hours of your precious time. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2011 15:10
|
|
|
With the "complete" cut available now, I would not recommend seeing any other version as your first experience with Metropolis. Even the 2001 restoration is difficult to follow, despite well-written explanatory intertitles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
What's the point of Pre Ordering a movie on ITunes or any other place you download them from? The whole point of pre ordering is so you can guarantee a copy on the day it's out. I don't see what the point of preordering a (Legally) downloadable version of a movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
It's to indulge the desire to impulse-buy. If you're willing to give them money for a movie at that moment, they'd rather hold it for you than take the chance that you'll forget to come back in a few weeks. It makes more sense for TV shows, where the content is released in installments over a long period anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 00:45
|
|
|
Ok, I asked about the first instance of "Extended Disarm" about 100 pages ago, and best anyone could figure was Mel Gibson in Mad Max, Beyond Thunderdome. Here is my followup: What is the first film to portray a fight, and at some point a barrel/bottle of booze gets shot/broken, and our hero pauses in the middle of the fight to take a drink of the falling alcohol? I noticed it last night in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the scene in Marion's bar in Mongolia. One of the Nazis/henchmen puts a round through a barrel of red liquid, and Marion stops fighting for a moment to have a drink by slurping it directly from the little booze waterfall. Anywhere earlier than that, in 1981?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
GORDON posted:Ok, I asked about the first instance of "Extended Disarm" about 100 pages ago, and best anyone could figure was Mel Gibson in Mad Max, Beyond Thunderdome. I think Drunken Master did this in 1978.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 05:06
|
|
|
GORDON posted:I noticed it last night in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the scene in Marion's bar in Mongolia. One of the Nazis/henchmen puts a round through a barrel of red liquid, and Marion stops fighting for a moment to have a drink by slurping it directly from the little booze waterfall. Anywhere earlier than that, in 1981? No idea, but it needs to happen more often in movies. The Untouchables did it in '87 and I can't remember a single movie since.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
Didn't that happen in Shrek?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:In About Schmidt you see a theater during a montage that is playing Sideways. Sideways came out in '04, About Schmidt came out in '02. That's a little strange, right? Is that some sort of inside joke? That reminds me of Lotso the Bear being in Up before he was in Toy Story 3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
I saw a movie at a bar on an HDTV that I assumed was optimized for sports, but the movie made it seem way more "real" than normal, but it looked really cheap, basically bad TV quality. I assume it's a hertz thing, but is this anything what the 48fps Hobbit would look like?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:I saw a movie at a bar on an HDTV that I assumed was optimized for sports, but the movie made it seem way more "real" than normal, but it looked really cheap, basically bad TV quality. I assume it's a hertz thing, but is this anything what the 48fps Hobbit would look like? The effect on televisions is a computer interpolating what isn't there with what is actually there. It is literally making all the stuff in the middle between actual frames up completely. Actual 48fps film, due to having all the data and not relying on a computer to futz about with it, shouldn't bear much of a resemblance to the cheapest soap opera ever recorded like interpolated high hertz televisions make everything look like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 06:46
|
|
|
I still don't understand how interpolation became a thing. It looks so bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
mexicanmonkey posted:I still don't understand how interpolation became a thing. It looks so bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:I saw a movie at a bar on an HDTV that I assumed was optimized for sports, but the movie made it seem way more "real" than normal, but it looked really cheap, basically bad TV quality. I assume it's a hertz thing, but is this anything what the 48fps Hobbit would look like? The TV had its form of motion blurring turned on and subsequently looks like rear end. Why this is even a function on televisions as the sheer amount of people who ask this question is crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 07:43
|
|
|
Again - it makes sports look really great and sports sell more TVs than movies ever could dream about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 08:00
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Again - it makes sports look really great and sports sell more TVs than movies ever could dream about. What about sports movies, then, smart guy? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 14:29
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I watched "New Rose Hotel" recently, while quite tired. It was excellent for much of the length, with Walken in his most Walkeny performance. I started to really fade in the last half hour, so could someone who's seen it tell me is the last half hour or so after Walken's death, entirely composed of Defoe sitting in the hotel room reminiscing about what has happened? Or did I miss something? As I said, I was pretty out of it and have since had to return the DVD. I haven't seen it in years but, yes, that's basically the gist of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
The auto-motion judder reduction works well if its only set to 1-3 max (out of 10) if you're wanting to reduce excessive motion blur while keeping the "film" look (LCD/LED TV refresh rates still have nothing on old CRT sets). But yeah, most TVs with this feature have it set to 5-10 straight out of the box, and it seems most people are either too indifferent or lazy to turn it down. I've had several people tell me that they won't turn to HD because they saw their friends HDTV (which had automotion cranked up) and decided HD makes everything move like it's shot on video. Even worse are the people who tell me they LOVE HD because it makes everything move like it's "super real".
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
Wild T posted:What about sports movies, then, smart guy? Usually don't do too well, actually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Usually don't do too well, actually. I was bored and curious so I looked up the box office for Warrior because it was the last sports movie I remember coming out and god drat, that movie did pretty terribly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
I just read that WB are planning to release the last Harry Potter movie on November 11th then pull all the movies from stores on December 29th, my question is Why? Wouldn't this just encourage illigal downloading? http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/harry-potter-will-disapparate-from-store-shelves-dec-29th
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
Two words: Disney Vault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:I just read that WB are planning to release the last Harry Potter movie on November 11th then pull all the movies from stores on December 29th, my question is Why? Wouldn't this just encourage illigal downloading? So they can justify charging $x00 for the box-set.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
I was watching Expendables and wondering if Stallone really has all those tattoos, or if they were fake. Which made me wonder, when they need to apply tattoos to someone, what do they use?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Which made me wonder, when they need to apply tattoos to someone, what do they use? Stallone does have the tattoos on his upper shoulders so nothing needed.  Covering up tattoos is usually done with mixing up foundation with clown makeup and matching the right tone but there's a range of spray on stuff and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
WebDog posted:Either elaborate airbrushing for something that takes up a lot of skin (Ralph Finnes for Red Dragon) or print out transfers for the low budget option, you can easily create them with an inkjet printer. I never knew it was so simple; I figured it was some kind of latex or something that they would use. I know there's the Shadowcast thing about Tim Curry's tattoo in Rockey Horror melting. it's actually kind of funny how with HD you can see really obvious tattoo cover up jobs. In Tomb Raider its really obvious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
WebDog posted:Either elaborate airbrushing for something that takes up a lot of skin (Ralph Finnes for Red Dragon) or print out transfers for the low budget option, you can easily create them with an inkjet printer. Is that his crazy, rear end aura-reading mom on his right shoulder there?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 00:10
|
|
