|
What is interesting to me, is that I first knew him from Days of Thunder, and then many years later I saw him in Talledega Nights.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Y'all need to watch some Paul Thomas Anderson movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Oh I know he's done all those other things, which is why I said it's probably not quite what PTizzle was looking for, it just always threw me seeing him in those comedy things after only being aware of him for a non-comedic role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:And if you're willing to call Chicago a serious role, then he had something similar in Scorsese's Gangs of New York and The Aviator. He was also great in Boogie Nights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:He was also great in Boogie Nights. Absolutely, though that's also a role that's pretty comedic (even if the movie isn't a comedy).
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
You can't get much weirder than Steve Brule.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread
Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Question about Looper: Spoilers just to be safe. OK, so in the film timeline one starts with JGL killing his future self, living a life of crime for ~ 30 years, and growing into Bruce Willis. During this time, the Rainmaker comes to power from nowhere and he's the one killing off all the loopers. Timeline two comes in and Bruce says "gently caress that" and comes up with enough data to go back and kill the Rainmaker before he gets to power, escaping having his loop closed. Now, Bruce is back in the past and he does what he can to track down Rainmaker as a kid. Fast forward and we see that Bruce is actually the catalyst that creates Rainmaker. He wounds RM, and kills his mom before his eyes. Except he couldn't. In timeline one, Bruce dies on arrival as scheduled. Rainmaker's mom isn't killed in front of him (presumably) so he doesn't grow up to the evil bastard that ruins Bruce's life, therefore he doesn't have the extra reason to avoid his closed loop. And he doesn't get the chance to create the rainmaker in the first place. I mean, did I miss something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Yes, the point
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Question about Looper: Spoilers just to be safe. JGL killed himself to stop the Rainmaker from becoming the Rainmaker, because that was how he stopped Bruce from killing the kid's mom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Question about Looper: Spoilers just to be safe. You're hung up on the notion of causality, which is understandable because that's how our non-time travel world works. There's nothing in the laws of physics that requires it, however, especially once time travel is introduced into the equation. If you really want to bake your noodle, read All You Zombies or By His Bootstraps, two short stories by Robert A Heinlein. e: If you're interested in reading more, you can check out the wikipedia article for closed time-like curves, specifically the consequences section regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Do people that have all the little lovely jobs on movies in the credits make a living from what they do? People like the guys the hold a boom mic, drive actors to and from a set or clap the clapper between scenes. Do these roles pay more than I think, do multiple jobs on set or neither?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
xcore posted:Do people that have all the little lovely jobs on movies in the credits make a living from what they do? People like the guys the hold a boom mic, drive actors to and from a set or clap the clapper between scenes. They probably pay more than you think. And something like a boom op is a pretty major/skilled role. It's not something that's glamorous, but it's very difficult to a) keep the mic close enough to catch (multiple) actors lines of dialogue cleanly, b) stay out of the frame (both their own body and the mic/pole), c) hold the boom up for that long. And all of that while people are moving around the scene so the boom op is moving the mic back and forth between whoever is talking. It's really neat to watch actually, almost like a choreographed dance. The person doing the clapping is (I believe, my camera department knowledge is a little rusty) the 2nd camera assistant and will also do things like load/unload film reels, and/or pull focus on the camera. I worked as a PA, which is basically the lowest rung on the ladder, on a reality tv show (aka low budget) and made $200/day. Drivers would likely make something similar, but they're not going to stay in that job forever, they're on set to make connections and move up to bigger, better paying jobs. Boom ops and camera assistants are much higher up and definitely make a liveable wage, even if they aren't aiming for anything higher. KasioDiscoRock fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
The film making industry is probably the most unionized part of the private sector in America. So most people get decent benefits and wages. You have to remember that even the jobs that seem really simple have to be done over and over and over again for 12+ hours a day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
xcore posted:Do people that have all the little lovely jobs on movies in the credits make a living from what they do? People like the guys the hold a boom mic, drive actors to and from a set or clap the clapper between scenes. This is what happens to them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
xcore posted:Do people that have all the little lovely jobs on movies in the credits make a living from what they do? People like the guys the hold a boom mic, drive actors to and from a set or clap the clapper between scenes. I work in post, but have worked in production and on set. So while I'm not 100% certain of this, I can say with a lot of confidence that boom ops on features are making an absolute MINIMUM of $2000/wk. In other words, the "scale" for their position on a union show is probably in the ballpark of $2000 for 50 worked hours. When we make our deals, we agree on a weekly guarantee that works thusly: I go in and say "give me 3300 for 50" and that means I want my wage to be $60/hr and I want to be paid for a 10 hour day every day (8 hours at $60 and 2 hours at $90 - time and a half). I'm asking them to guarantee that I will be paid a minimum of $3300/wk and in return I will guarantee them that I am willing and able to commit to a ten hour day. If its a slow day, I can leave early but still be paid for the 10 hours. BUT I'd better not make plans, generally, to be free before those 10 hours are up - since they're paying me for them, they can ask me to stay and I can't really say no. I don't incur additional overtime until I go beyond ten hours. The producer might counter with something like "I only budgeted for $2750/wk... Let me do the math... That would be $50/hr if we did a 50 hour guarantee." If I sense that they absolutely will not go over $50/hr and I need or want the job, I'd try to get more hours in the guarantee. "Give me that rate but do a 55 so I get $3125/wk" And so on. Now this is a decent rate for a below the line crew member. But what really ends up happening is you start putting in 70, 80, or even more hours per week and it really goes through the roof. Meal penalties for missed meals. "Turnaround" (if I am making double time when I leave at night and I show up to work less than 10 hours later, I start my new day in double time). Night premiums (all hours after 8 PM are +10%). Box rentals (I rent my equipment to the production so they don't have to provide it for me - I charge less than an outside vendor since I have no overhead on the stuff and it probably paid for itself years ago). Location bonuses - a housing allowance, car rental allowance, and per diem when on location, as well as additional "holding fees" for keeping me on location on Saturdays and Sundays (this is typically 8x our hourly rate, and gets added to your paycheck even when you don't work the weekend, so you don't try to leave town and go back home on the weekends.) There was a job I did a few years ago where my base rate (my guarantee) was $2250/wk but most weeks I made a minimum of 4 grand. That year I made $250,000. The best I've ever done was a consecutive 4 week run of 8k, 9k, 10k, and 10k - so 37k in a month, as an assistant editor on a $3000/wk deal. In total I made about $100k in 16 weeks on that one. Had another good one a year or so ago where I made a deal based on a $3000/wk and made 9k in 9 days - the length of the job. That one was a super time crunch - a short film for the DNC, directed by an academy award winning documentary filmmaker. A boom op who makes a deal for 2000 a week could easily average twice that through the length of a shoot. If they do three, three month gigs in a year, that's $150,000 a year. And that's making "minimum wage" for the position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. What have I been doing with my life?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
xcore posted:Holy poo poo. What have I been doing with my life? Masturbating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Thanks for all the playing against type recommendations, all of them are what I was looking for!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
The point is this: I think most of the unions have a scale (minimum wage) of around $35/hr for the lowest position in the department. Most people would do the math on that and think $35 x 40 = $1,400/wk and they'd come away thinking movie industry professionals make a decent living, but nothing too crazy. And you know what? Some people working on union shows really do make about that much. But the reality is that you can make north of $200,000 in a good year with pay stubs that show you earning less than $40/hr. Just as actors ultimately make a good bit more than the amount they are guaranteed, the laborers usually do too. I don't even have a college degree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
xcore posted:clap the clapper This is usually done by the "2nd AC" and you can definitely apply the numbers I quoted. They're all terrible at their job, too. "1st AC" aka focus puller might make 50% more. Camera Operator makes even more. DP on a decent sized feature will make a minimum of 8k/wk, more like 12-15. Long tenured DPs with excellent records will hit 20+ and I think the top guys get ballpark 30k/wk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
In Willow, is Elora Danan a macguffin?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:In Willow, is Elora Danan a macguffin?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
The UK is less unionised. An HOD like DP or production designer might get £1,000/w on a v low budget film, up to around £2.5-3k/w on mid-budget (£4-8m) and more on bigger/studio films. The differential between them and other crew is lower especially in low-budget films. Also, "lovely jobs" is really patronising. Those people get films made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
SubG posted:No, she's Daikini. Shutup peck!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
therattle posted:The UK is less unionised. An HOD like DP or production designer might get £1,000/w on a v low budget film, up to around £2.5-3k/w on mid-budget (£4-8m) and more on bigger/studio films. I've worked on some things with crew members in other countries and it is appalling to me how much less they get paid - on the other hand though, some of them have been real grade-A gently caress ups. I've had some really fun times fixing mistakes made by "Assistant Editors" who were being paid $800 (equivalent) or less in another country. A couple of training videos on how to drive an Avid doesn't make you an Assistant Editor. Years of apprenticeship, working under skilled people and learning from them, actually do help. I'm glad my union exists and screens out the goofballs who have no business coming near a cutting room. Anyway, you do find super low budget (non-union) shows here that pay Editors, DPs, and other heads of department as little as $100/day. But generally speaking, the people who work on those will never come near a "real" show (something that an audience will see) -OR- they are splitting time between jobs like that, which they take to try to build some steam, and union jobs where they make more money doing what they're already known for and good at, e.g. someone who normally makes $3,000/wk as an Assistant Whatever on Spiderman and Sandra Bullock movies will take $1,000/wk to play a bigger role on a smaller show for a short time in between the union gigs. I have found that those smaller gigs rarely end up helping the career though. therattle posted:The differential between them and other crew is lower especially in low-budget films. Hey man, this is 'Murca, where the boss deserves to make AT LEAST 10x what anybody else makes... just because of reasons, Goddamnit! What are you, some kind of loving COMMIE? I actually know of a very famous (as much as any film editor can be) Academy Award winning editor who makes less than his top assistants. I'd guess it's therefore possible that outliers like that exist in all departments. And on smaller shows where editors are making scale or have a low rate, it's easy for their assistants to make more than them since the assistants rake in tons of OT and editors almost never do - I mean I did a small job where my rate was around $1,800/wk for 50 hours, and the editor was getting $3,000. They producers tried to limit my OT but there was at least one week where I put in enough extra hours that I went over $3k. therattle posted:Also, "lovely jobs" is really patronising. Those people get films made. I'm glad you said that - though I'm not sure I agree that it was a patronizing comment. It speaks more to ignorance of the industry, and that's not so terrible is it? I mean I guess it's not very nice to assume that the hundreds or even thousands of people working on a film have "lovely" jobs. But the question, the simple curiosity about it, shows that they want to know if those *are* lovely jobs or good ones. However - if you take even a moment to think about it, OF COURSE the wages are decent. Where, in the entire USA, is "Carpenter" (for example) not a decent job? Wouldn't it stand to reason that a Carpenter who is tasked with building sets on fancy movies, and who has to pay a mortgage or rent in an expensive city, is going to make a good living? Same goes for the truck drivers. The painters. The make-up artists and hairdressers. The caterers. How much did you spend on catering for your wedding? Now imagine catering for an even bigger group (many of whom are high strung, millionaire, nutcases with special snowflake needs) every single day for 3 months. Of course caterers on movie sets make a good living. Most everyone who works on a movie set, or even in post, is doing a variation on a "good" job that can and is done elsewhere. None of the jobs are lovely, really - not even the PA (entry level, non-union) gigs. Nobody who thinks their job is lovely is going to last in this industry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
So I just watched Vanilla Sky for the first time and I'm kind of wondering what other people thought of it and how it was critically received when it came out... I kind of liked it, but I thought it was a really simple concept, with mediocre execution, and basically ran the idea into the ground in the last 20 minutes when they explained what was going on so many times it's like they were really afraid that no one would get it. So far my opinion is that it was a neat concept, and its ideas were skillfully directed and put on the screen, but it was horrible written, and that the writing really undermined what should have been the climax. I knew very little about the film going into it, really I was just aware of the famous Time's Square scene, and bits that I remembered from the trailer when it came out. edit: Five Cent Deposit posted:
This only makes sense if you realize that these jobs are directly related to the film industry. This is, after all, the USA, where a large number of entry level jobs are minimum wage with no benefits. Someone unfamiliar with the film industry may think that the minor/'more blue-collar' jobs in the credits are more similar to the aforementioned jobs. So yes, I think it's offensive to call someone's job lovely, but I also think it's completely understandable to have a wrong impression about lesser understood jobs in the film industry from an outside perspective. If you're someone like me, who's never made more than 9.50 an hour and yet has been given a great deal of responsibility, put in charge of other employees, been in charge of making policies and training staff with little or no oversight for years, it's totally reasonable to wonder about wages and working conditions for jobs that sound like they would have a similar amount of responsibility. edit: V I wasn't trying to be inflammatory, I was simply trying to point out that there are plenty of industries in the US where wages aren't decent. Snak fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Eh. Thought better of it. Maybe I'll revisit.
Five Cent Deposit fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
Snak posted:So I just watched Vanilla Sky for the first time and I'm kind of wondering what other people thought of it and how it was critically received when it came out... I kind of liked it, but I thought it was a really simple concept, with mediocre execution, and basically ran the idea into the ground in the last 20 minutes when they explained what was going on so many times it's like they were really afraid that no one would get it. So far my opinion is that it was a neat concept, and its ideas were skillfully directed and put on the screen, but it was horrible written, and that the writing really undermined what should have been the climax. It's also a remake of a Spanish film, which made it weird as hell for me when I saw Vanilla Sky having seen the original but not knowing it was a remake, and spending the whole movie having the damndest sense of deja vu.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
PTizzle posted:Lately I've been thinking of actors playing against type or playing very odd roles (the kind of movie that they generally don't play if they're an actor/actress who is somewhat typecast), can anybody think of a few out of the norm I might have missed? Preferably not bit-parts, but otherwise anything is good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:It's also a remake of a Spanish film, which made it weird as hell for me when I saw Vanilla Sky having seen the original but not knowing it was a remake, and spending the whole movie having the damndest sense of deja vu. The Spanish original (Abre los Ojos) is the much better film in my opinion, although that may be colored by having seen it first. I also didn't realise it was a remake until partway through, which was an interesting experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
e: ooops wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Nicolas Cage in Adaptation is probably the least Nicolas Cage he's ever been in a movie, but still pretty Nicolas Cage at times. There was two Nicolas Cage's in the movie so it works out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Is the dream sequence with a dwarf being filmed in In Bruges a reference to this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4je71Tz_9IE
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Well, that is a reference to Twin Peaks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 01:58
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Well, that is a reference to Twin Peaks. I see, haven't watched Twin Peaks, probably should.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Yes you should. It's hard to convey how much that show permeated popular culture in the 90's given what it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Everyone should have an informed opinion on Twin Peaks even if they wind up not liking it. I'm pretty sure it's still on Hulu, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
I love Living in Oblivion, but its supposed skewering of David Lynch in that clip is really dumb. Especially since the Twin Peaks scene they are referencing was not even initially filmed as a dream sequence.
Two Worlds fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
I thought it was more a wider critique of the way 'dream-logic' works in movies and tv, which usually implies dream sequences but in Lynch's stuff it's often just the base material.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 11:06
|
|
