|
Magic Hate Ball posted:My technique is to watch it with all the lights off and take as few breaks as possible (preferably zero). I've never seen the extras disc, though. I almost can't believe he shot that much footage (editing must've been a nightmare) but then again a bunch of his other films have been edited down too - Wild At Heart was four hours and Blue Velvet was eight or something ridiculous like that. This definitely. Shut off the lights and any distractions, move the furniture if you have to and just soak it in. Never took a look at the bonus disc either, can anyone recommend it?
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
The bonus movie gives a lot of "backstory" for lack of a better word, especially regarding Nikki and her husband, I didn't watch the entire thing but it seemed to mostly be Nikki/Husband domestic drama. It's hardly necessary or vital and the scenes do not flow together at all. I've seen the actual movie four or five times though. Just watch it, up close with volume up and don't take any breaks. I defnitely recommend the short "Ballerina" film that's on the bonus disc though. Just a ballerina dancing, but it is intensely engaging and hypnotizing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Which one's the one where the college students go to see an art film and a giant pair of scissors comes out of the screen and stabs one of them to death?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:My technique is to watch it with all the lights off and take as few breaks as possible (preferably zero). I've never seen the extras disc, though. I almost can't believe he shot that much footage (editing must've been a nightmare) but then again a bunch of his other films have been edited down too - Wild At Heart was four hours and Blue Velvet was eight or something ridiculous like that. Not to mention Dune and Fire Walk With Me, which had at least two hours cut. Lynch made some noises a few years ago about releasing a ' director's cut' of fwwm but it never came to pass because of rights issues. Too bad, cause the shooting script is much more interesting than the movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
This is probably going to be a pretty obscure question buuuuuttt.... in the Argentina film Nueve Reinas, Marcos -- just around right before him and Juan decide to really team up and go to the hotel and everything -- calls someone on a payphone and just says something to the effect of "go through with it", watching it at the time it seemed like it was setting him up to pull some trick on Juan but I can't remember that phonecall ever coming up again. Was there any point to it or was it just a red herring?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
I watched The Insider recently and wasn't very impressed with it. Can someone suggest what was I supposed to be admiring? Russell Crowe was very good but Al Pacino is horribly miscast. His lines are partly to blame - which journalist shouts all that crap over the phone to a source who sounds like he's about to off himself? And Mike Wallace's allegiance shifts without any build-up or explanation. It wasn't a bad film, there were some good moments, but I can't understand its universal acclaim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
It deals with Important Issues in a Serious Manner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
Here's a weird one. When a few friends and I saw The Village in an independent local theater, we noticed visible boom mics in a number of shots. One scene featuring Ivy and I think Joaquin Phoenix's character outside was particularly obvious; you could see the fuzzy wind screen and it was clearly pointing towards whoever was speaking. My wife, who I did not know at the time, saw it at the same theater and also noticed this. Any time I mention this to anyone else who has seen the movie anywhere but at that theater they have no idea what I'm talking about. I did a little research and found some people from Portland (I'm nowhere near Portland) discussing seeing the same thing at local screenings. One guy who saw this blamed the projectionist. Best as I can figure, my local theater used to have one large screen, not the typical multiplex style theater. I also happen to know the projectionist at the time was a crack head. I guess my question is how often will a movie go out with poo poo like this along the edge of the frame, with the expectation that the projectionist will catch that and a bit will be cut off? Isn't that the sort of thing that would become obvious in editing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:I guess my question is how often will a movie go out with poo poo like this along the edge of the frame, with the expectation that the projectionist will catch that and a bit will be cut off? Isn't that the sort of thing that would become obvious in editing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
It depends. There's a way to shoot a 35mm movie "hard matted" so that the framing is always right, but it costs a little more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
I guess it just sounds like an obvious thing to do, especially with a larger budget movie like The Village. In unrelated news, I found footage on YouTube from the theater I'm talking about. They filmed the interiors for an extremely lovely Nelly movie named Snipes there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvv_pAAk7kA&t=3772s
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
Projectionists are far from infallible, particularly nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:It depends. There's a way to shoot a 35mm movie "hard matted" so that the framing is always right, but it costs a little more. Where did you get the idea that it costs more? Very few pictures are shot with a hard matte, but not for any cost reason. Even films with hard mattes on the negative aren't usually matted to the final projected aspect ratio. For example, I've seen the 4K scans of Terminator and while almost every shot is matted, it isn't matted to the 1.85:1 ratio. There's more on all sides. If you see booms in the theater, it is the projectionist's fault, plain and simple.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
In Black Swan, I've seen people make mention of the 'Night of Terror' sequence. Which bit is that, exactly? Is it the nightclub scene and all the scenes after?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
I'm trying to recall a film based off a picture I saw. From what I remember it was either an Italian or a French production and the most iconic sequence involved a clown performing in a white/snowy backdrop. Sorry for the vagueness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
La Strada?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Where did you get the idea that it costs more? Very few pictures are shot with a hard matte, but not for any cost reason. Wanted to double check this, but it's in Paul Sylbert's "Final Cut" (the one about the making of The Steagle, not Heaven's Gate)- he wanted to shoot it hard matte, the studio refused, and he says it was for cost reasons. Then again, this was 1970, and he could have been wrong anyway, but it was one request he ended up not getting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Wanted to double check this, but it's in Paul Sylbert's "Final Cut" (the one about the making of The Steagle, not Heaven's Gate)- he wanted to shoot it hard matte, the studio refused, and he says it was for cost reasons. Then again, this was 1970, and he could have been wrong anyway, but it was one request he ended up not getting. If you can dig up a quote, I'd love to read it. I'm not being argumentative - I'm genuinely curious as to what his explanation is. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Am I gay as gently caress for liking the movie What Women Want, or does anyone else legit think that it's a good movie?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 09:28
|
|
|
poonchasta posted:Am I gay as gently caress for liking the movie What Women Want, or does anyone else legit think that it's a good movie? Youre not "gay as gently caress" but from what I remember of seeing it years ago that it was a pretty stereotypical but not really "offensive" idiot protrayal of how women think or something. So I didnt think it was particularly good myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Youre not "gay as gently caress" but from what I remember of seeing it years ago that it was a pretty stereotypical but not really "offensive" idiot protrayal of how women think or something. I saw most of it once. It wasn't nearly as bad or offensive as I expected it to be. It was less about the stereotypical things women think and more about Mel Gibson's character learning to think about the feelings of others. Overall it was pretty generic though, following exactly the beats you would expect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
poonchasta posted:Am I gay as gently caress for liking the movie What Women Want, or does anyone else legit think that it's a good movie? It was generic but entertaining enough I guess? I don't think it was offensive or anything, just fairly bland and predictable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
The two most memorable moments when watching What Women Want were Mel Gibon's character finding out he's not all that good at groping boobs and me realizing I was watching a Nike ad disguised as a romantic comedy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
Hey guys. I trying to remember a movie where there is a scene where you see the back of a blonde's head and it's revealed to be a dude with a mustache. [edit] I think the blonde in question was wearing jeans and is using a pay phone. Does this ring any bells? Ritz On Toppa Ritz fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Nov 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Cracker King posted:Hey guys. I trying to remember a movie where there is a scene where you see the back of a blonde's head and it's revealed to be a dude with a mustache. It is familiar from some 80s comedy or other, but beyond that I'm drawing a blank. The fine folks in this thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2177344 will probably be able to help more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
What's the difference between a Director of Photography and a Cinematographer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:What's the difference between a Director of Photography and a Cinematographer? No difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:What's the difference between a Director of Photography and a Cinematographer? The first one allows you to tell people "I'm the Director! ...of Photography..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
Marisa Tomei is really good in What Women Want. Unfortunately she's not in it as much as the execrable Helen Hunt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 07:17
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:This is probably going to be a pretty obscure question buuuuuttt.... in the Argentina film Nueve Reinas, Marcos -- just around right before him and Juan decide to really team up and go to the hotel and everything -- calls someone on a payphone and just says something to the effect of "go through with it", watching it at the time it seemed like it was setting him up to pull some trick on Juan but I can't remember that phonecall ever coming up again. Was there any point to it or was it just a red herring? Maybe he was calling the guy who was supposed to mug them in the latter part of the film?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
Lobok posted:The first one allows you to tell people "I'm the Director! ...of Photography..." "Lighting cameraman" is much more apt. It's a British term and quite perfect when you consider the amazing work by Jack Cardiff, Geoffrey Unsworth, and Gilbert Taylor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:What's the difference between a Director of Photography and a Cinematographer? I've been told that even though they're used interchangeably, the former refers to the head technical expert on cameras, film, lights, etc., while the latter coordinates the artistic aspects of each shot. Someone call me out if I'm wrong, but I think these duties are usually performed by the same person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
I absolutely love the cinematography of the Ocean's Trilogy. That style of film, with the retro look, great panning an zooming shots and music all combined....does this style have a term? Or is it something the director sort of made his own? Also Ocean's 13 is as good as 11.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
DNS posted:Marisa Tomei is really good in What Women Want. Unfortunately she's not in it as much as the execrable Helen Hunt. Hunt is a weird one. She's largely annoying, but she's fantastic in both The Waterdance and Six Sessions, playing mostly the same role to be fair but still. She's better in drama than she is in comedy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 10:07
|
|
|
I just saw Magic Mike and I'm not sure I "get" it. Does the movie actually end? The plot seems to not go anywhere and there's no closure for any of the characters. I did enjoy it in general, the characters were interesting and believable and boy it really motivates me to go excercise more, but that's just making me even more frustrated that the film don't actually go anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 13:31
|
|
|
OnlyJuanMon posted:I absolutely love the cinematography of the Ocean's Trilogy. That style of film, with the retro look, great panning an zooming shots and music all combined....does this style have a term? Or is it something the director sort of made his own? Speaking of Soderbergh: Throatwarbler posted:I just saw Magic Mike and I'm not sure I "get" it. Does the movie actually end? The plot seems to not go anywhere and there's no closure for any of the characters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
kuddles posted:
I just felt like something more should have happened after Mike and Brooke started getting together. What's Mike going to do after this? Is this a setup for a sequel?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I just felt like something more should have happened after Mike and Brooke started getting together. What's Mike going to do after this? Is this a set-up for a sequel? He's essentially given up as a stripper and stopped lying to himself. That's why they finally get together at the end. He's $10,000 worse off, but it was a wake-up call. Mike is deluded through the whole film anyway, he keeps procrastinating and never really commits to his plans. With Brooke he finally thinks that he needs to do something, anything, that's not stripping. As for everyone else well their stories carry on. They'll open the new club and it'll be bigger and better, but they'll all lead the same empty lives until they're as old as Kevin Nash and passing out on the floor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
So I recall watching parts of Cameron Jaime's films in an art museum one time and now I really want to check them out again. http://www.artangel.org.uk//projects/2003/kranky_klaus_bb_spook_house/about_the_project/kranky_klaus_bb_spook_house Is there any way to watch these outside of a special screening? I know Matthew Barney's stuff is comparably hard to view also because it is capital A art (apparently).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:If you can dig up a quote, I'd love to read it. I'm not being argumentative - I'm genuinely curious as to what his explanation is. There's not much of an explanation, but here's what he writes: Paul Slyter posted:The zoom and the hard matte, which I had requested in order to prevent theater projectionists all over the world from reframing the shots, were both discovered to be victims of the penny-pinching that had preceded the big budget meeting of the previous day. The matte I refer to was the only solution to a problem created by the now deceased Spyros Skouras when he invented the 1.85:1 ratio, or "poor man's cinemascope" as it came to be called. It was simply a method of using standard 35mm film and cropping a bit from the top and bottom to give the effect of the wide-screen process. But these margins were only inscribed on the ground glass of the camera as a guide and the film was exposed to its full dimensions. That meant that a projectionist could frame up or down, giving or subtracting head room, however his digestion directed him. The hard-matte prevented those margins from being exposed so that his latitude was limited to minute fractions. Maybe at the time the hard-matte referred to an actual bit of hardware you'd put in front of a lens to actually cut off those parts of the frame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 07:11
|
|