|
Burden of Dreams is pretty great.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
I remember liking Full Tilt Boogie, which is about the making of From Dusk Till Dawn. I see that it's streaming on Netflix.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Seconding the one for The Shining, it's just so casual and I wish her documentary for Full Metal Jacket was available (or completed?).reni89 posted:Guys, I mentioned heart of darkness in the question 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
The one people always forget when this topic comes up is Demon Lover Diary, which is about as harrowing as Hearts of Darkness and Burden of Dreams but with the added tragicomedy of the fact that nobody liked the movie they made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
I didn't forget about it, I'd just never heard about it and now I'm gonna watch it because it sounds amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Does American Movie count?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
If you want more reason to hate Troy Duffy and Boondock Saints there is Overnight
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Thought of another one: The Sweatbox, which is about the making of The Emperor's New Groove. It was produced by Sting's wife and suppressed by Disney because of all the problems there were with the production: http://vimeo.com/39388975
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
I didn't know The Sweatbox was still up. Also Demon Lover Diary was terrific and I'm annoyed that it and Joel DeMott's later film Seventeen are so hard to get a hold of. That sequence at the end after they leave the house for the last time and you hear someone crying and the mother saying "You're running from something, you're running from something" is exactly the kind of weird thing I love about cinema verite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Seventeen is a available as part of the Middletown DVD set along with all the other great documentaries in that series.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
What's the difference between writers credited as "and" or "&"? One pair works together?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 10:44
|
|
|
Chicolini posted:What's the difference between writers credited as "and" or "&"? One pair works together? Yes. "&" means a pair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
Ampersand worked together as a team, 'and' worked separately, probably in rewrites. Towards the bottom of page six: http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/writers_resources/credits/screenscredits_manual10.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
How can a film have a 'Special Guest Star'?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 12:54
|
|
|
Can someone explain the whole thing with the banker in Holy Motors? The banker is the guy who originally enters the limo, right? And then he turns into Oscar? And then Oscar tries to kill him on the street?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:How can a film have a 'Special Guest Star'? I would suspect it's either A: done out of admiration and respect or B: the special guest star is so big that they can negotiate that credit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
foodfight posted:Can someone explain the whole thing with the banker in Holy Motors? The banker is the guy who originally enters the limo, right? And then he turns into Oscar? And then Oscar tries to kill him on the street? Wait, I think I figured part of this out, Oscar was the banker at the beginning, in makeup. That still doesn't explain why he shoots the banker on the street later. Is this related to the doppelganger he stabs earlier?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I would suspect it's either A: done out of admiration and respect or B: the special guest star is so big that they can negotiate that credit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Detective Thompson posted:Ampersand worked together as a team, 'and' worked separately, probably in rewrites. Towards the bottom of page six: Thank you for this. It was hard to google something like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
kuddles posted:Heather Locklear was listed as a "Special Guest Star" for every single episode of 7 seasons of Melrose Place. This is ridiculously funny to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:This is ridiculously funny to me. Yeah, I love it. It's like she's a country music star just in town for a few years to star in Melrose Place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
My favorite is in Police Squad! where the "special guest star" would be murdered in the opening credits of every episode and never seen again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TQQcy_5zsM&t=32s
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
I just saw Blue Valentine. Anyone know any other films like it? The couple really reminded me of True Romance for some reason. So anything with a hosed up couple who make all the wrong decisions/have sex in the street would be great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
asap-salafi posted:I just saw Blue Valentine. Anyone know any other films like it? The couple really reminded me of True Romance for some reason. Got you covered: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G4jnaznUoQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Luckluster posted:Got you covered: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G4jnaznUoQ One of few good things Family Guy ever gave us was when they dedicated a full four minutes to show this entire video and go "Look how loving dumb this is." Peter - "Yeah, this happened. And you let it happen."
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:One of few good things Family Guy ever gave us was when they dedicated a full four minutes to show this entire video and go "Look how loving dumb this is." I respect both artists enough to treat this as a mulligan. Everybody hits one into the woods now and then. I'd say it was the drugs but Bowie also did good music in this same period so I dunno. (Also he was the Goblin King and that was just on the awesome side of cheesy.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
asap-salafi posted:I just saw Blue Valentine. Anyone know any other films like it? The couple really reminded me of True Romance for some reason. Have you seen Wild at Heart?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I respect both artists enough to treat this as a mulligan. Everybody hits one into the woods now and then. That video is brought to you by cocaine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
e: Thought I was in gen. chat, sorry.
Shanty fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:Have you seen Wild at Heart? Seconding this, although there is a separate thread for asking for recommendations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Editing in movies has always been a mystery to me. I have some question I though you all could/might help me with. Anyone got any good examples of good and then bad editing in movies? Why is editing important? Didn't the director shoot the shots he wanted and then the editor just puts them together? Why is the editor re-arranging the shot anyway? What if the editor change the feel/atmosphere of the scene from what the director wanted? Can the actually do that just with editing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
If you're curious you might check out Walter Murch's In The Blink Of An Eye and/or The Conversations, which go into a good deal of depth, but some basic answers: In a sense, yes, the director shoots the shots he wants and the editor puts them together, but there are a thousand reasons why this isn't rendered literally on-screen as you probably imagine it. There certainly are films in which this is the case (in the most extreme form it's called in-camera editing, in which the movie is all shot sequentially on one piece of film and is transferred without change) but in almost no films is this the case, which should tell you why editing is such a major part of filmmaking. There are, to boil it way down, two essential parts to editing a film: picking the takes to use and stringing them together. When a filmmaker shoots a scene he, usually, shoots it several times, sometimes a few times and sometimes over a hundred (as was the case, infamously, with The Shining). Usually the scene is shot from several different angles, sometimes with multiple cameras but usually this requires shooting it over again for each different angle. A scene where two characters converse may show one character, and then the other, and thus there are not only two shots (if not more) but multiple takes of both shots and not only does every take have its own features but every moment in every take has its own features and quickly we can see problems with the idea of simply putting on-screen whomever may be talking at the moment and this is the editor's task. What if, while one person is talking, the other is having an interesting reaction? If we show it, how long should we show it for? In this sense an editor is absolutely able to change the feel and atmosphere of a scene and many directors have explicitly stated that filmmaking doesn't begin until the film is on the editing desk and, of course, the director is usually present to guide the editor's choices towards a desired effect and several full cuts of a film may be made before the director is satisfied (see, for example, Blade Runner, or Brazil's infamous "Love Conquers All" cut). Since editing is an art there's no clear definition of what "bad editing" entails because all the rules can be broken to great effect (see Breathless, which popularized the jump cut) and I can't think of any solid examples show you but obviously there are all sorts of movies with poor editing. edit: check out the opening scene of Brian DePalma's Blow-up (  ), which is an amusing example of the editing process in action.
Magic Hate Ball fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
One of the more interesting examples of how editing works is on the Extended Edition DVD/BR of the Fellowship of the Ring- one of the special features focuses on the editing and assembly of the Council of Rivendell scene, and you can actually look at the various shot elements they did over time (which is quite a bit because it's a long scene with a lot of people speaking.) A scene rarely gets run straight through, start to finish- instead they shoot parts of it based on what they know they'll need according to the shooting script, and more on top of that so they have leeway in editing it. They try to cover everything you might need in putting together the scene so they don't have to go back and do reshoots because the director realized something late in editing. On top of this, over multiple takes an actor's readings and gestures can change, and an editor has to make sure that the takes chosen add up to a coherent performance. (I've heard that Christopher Walken never gives the same reading twice.) Otherwise an actor might be playing a scene really intense one moment and laid back the next without any explanation. And THEN there's all the minor matching you have to do- like, if a character's head was turning one way in a wide shot the next shot needs to match that movement. There are films (like Breathless, as above) which deliberately ignore this kind of continuity and coverage, but you have to really know what you're doing to pull that off. It's like grammar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
So for audio clarity and editing reasons, there's often voice over or dubbing of lines in movies. (Not sure what it's called in the industry.) I almost never watch a movie without noticing this, and I can't stand it. It breaks immersion for me way more than unbelievable scenarios and unrealistic dialog. If we have the technology to make CGI so good that most people notice it, I assume we have the tech to edit audio better than this. What percentage of an average movie's dialog is voiceover? Do people notice this less than I do, even though I'm not a film buff? Are big-budget movies sloppy about this because they don't care, or because time and money are in short supply at this point in production?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Mescal posted:So for audio clarity and editing reasons, there's often voice over or dubbing of lines in movies. (Not sure what it's called in the industry.) I almost never watch a movie without noticing this, and I can't stand it. It breaks immersion for me way more than unbelievable scenarios and unrealistic dialog. If we have the technology to make CGI so good that most people notice it, I assume we have the tech to edit audio better than this. Isn't this called ADR (automated dialogue replacement)? Or am I mixing up my terms here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
Mescal posted:What percentage of an average movie's dialog is voiceover? I've heard estimates of about 80%. It's much more with background noises, footsteps, sheets rustling, coffee mugs clanking on the table. If there's a foregrounded noise from something inanimate, it's almost certainly foley.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:In this sense an editor is absolutely able to change the feel and atmosphere of a scene and many directors have explicitly stated that filmmaking doesn't begin until the film is on the editing desk and, of course, the director is usually present to guide the editor's choices towards a desired effect and several full cuts of a film may be made before the director is satisfied (see, for example, Blade Runner, or Brazil's infamous "Love Conquers All" cut). Since editing is an art there's no clear definition of what "bad editing" entails because all the rules can be broken to great effect (see Breathless, which popularized the jump cut) and I can't think of any solid examples show you but obviously there are all sorts of movies with poor editing. I don't recall the details, but I remember reading in school about an experiment where a filmmaker took the same reaction shot of a man and placed it next to various shots of things he was reacting to. After showing a different version to different audiences, the same actor in the same shot was hailed for his his acting by the audience, but each time of a different emotion. Rage, heartbreak, and serenity can all be conveyed by the same shot depending on how it is used by the editor. That "chemistry" between actors that people are always on about? 90% of it was constructed in the editing room. Maxwell Lord posted:On top of this, over multiple takes an actor's readings and gestures can change, and an editor has to make sure that the takes chosen add up to a coherent performance. (I've heard that Christopher Walken never gives the same reading twice.) Otherwise an actor might be playing a scene really intense one moment and laid back the next without any explanation. This quality was used to great success in American Psycho. The director had Willem Dafoe shoot multiple versions of each take, some in which his character knew that Bateman had killed Allen, and some in which he didn't suspect at all. In editing, these were constantly switched between so that neither the audience nor Bateman could get a proper read on him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:I don't recall the details, but I remember reading in school about an experiment where a filmmaker took the same reaction shot of a man and placed it next to various shots of things he was reacting to. After showing a different version to different audiences, the same actor in the same shot was hailed for his his acting by the audience, but each time of a different emotion. Rage, heartbreak, and serenity can all be conveyed by the same shot depending on how it is used by the editor. That "chemistry" between actors that people are always on about? 90% of it was constructed in the editing room. Kuleshov effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
I really like Hitchcock's demonstration of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
edit: wrong thread
General Dog fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 05:06
|
|
