|
david_a posted:What I meant was to ask was if 70mm or IMAX lets you use a noticeably smaller f-stop. There is a point where stopping down will reduce sharpness due to diffraction, which is why people like Group f/64 used massive view cameras with big ole' lenses that could be stopped down to f/64 while remaining crystal sharp. All of this was a fairly roundabout way of asking whether the King of Kings / Citizen Kane shots could have been done without trickery on 70mm and/or IMAX Ah, no. Exposure time would never be long enough for such extremely high stops so lenses like that don't get made. Time shots could use them I guess, but so far as I know there were never any specialty lenses made for that, and so the shots are just achieved by stacking ND. quote:Ah, now that's the sort of thing I was asking about. A t-stop is new to me, and off the top of my head I can't think of an analog for anamorphic lenses in still photography... They'd be a rare specialty lens if they do exist. There wouldn't be much of a benefit in stills. Still lenses will still lose light through every glass element though, and you might find a half to full stop difference in exposure between two lenses set identically. Still photography just doesn't need that much precision though, so t-stops aren't even taught since it would be extra superfluous work. The difference between f-stops and t-stops generally won't be as high as on a cinema lens though. quote:I remember that part of Saving Private Ryan now... Do movies typically use a range of different film speeds depending on the scene, or do they just pick ISO 400 or whatever for visual consistency? 250 and 500 on the common ISOs, with a few others available for specific cases. These days films shoot on one or two stocks mostly based on lighting conditions as Kodak's stocks all look pretty similar now. A few years ago films would mix all manner of stocks based on the aesthetic of each scene. But Fuji is out of the game and Kodak is favorite an orange highlights/blue shadows look for all of the current Vision line. Back in the '70s and early '80s there was only one stock in general use (5247) and it was 100T and didn't underexpose well at all by current standards. Modern digital cameras also have a fixed natural ISO, but we can rate them differently and account for it in the grade if we need to.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:49
|
|
(I'm guessing no)
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
I often hear Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo talked about as a film that underperformed at the box office. The movie made $233mil on a budget of $90mil. My understanding was that to be a "hit" you need to make back about double your budget - am I wrong here? How was this movie a flop?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:I often hear Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo talked about as a film that underperformed at the box office. The movie made $233mil on a budget of $90mil. My understanding was that to be a "hit" you need to make back about double your budget - am I wrong here? How was this movie a flop? They wanted it to make more, and it was based on a book that sold a zillion copies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:I often hear Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo talked about as a film that underperformed at the box office. The movie made $233mil on a budget of $90mil. My understanding was that to be a "hit" you need to make back about double your budget - am I wrong here? How was this movie a flop? It made a boatload of money, but they expected two boatloads of money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Also it sucked rear end and everyone should be glad Fincher didn't get locked into doing sequels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Hollywood accounting makes sure that even when you make money you lose money. At least on paper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
They probably screw themselves when they make less than expected, even if it's still a profit, because I'm sure they make accounting decisions based on projected revenue. But mostly this: Uncle Boogeyman posted:Also it sucked rear end and everyone should be glad Fincher didn't get locked into doing sequels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
penismightier posted:But mostly this: Yeah, I thought for sure that if anyone could take the mediocre source material and make a great film, David Fincher could. It had a great trailer and soundtrack, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Also it sucked rear end and everyone should be glad Fincher didn't get locked into doing sequels. Eh, I think the Fincher version is the best possible version that a Hollywood version could be, which sounds like a backhanded compliment and perhaps is in a way but it really is well done and offers things that a low budget foreign version can't. But that version has its own charm. The greatest strength of the foreign version is realistic characters that seem more like average schlubs muddling their way through a mystery. The Hollywood version is more accomplished and better looking folks doing the same thing but in a more professional manner and presentation that reminds you you're watching a movie -- a very entertaining movie to be sure, but yes a movie. They're both 3 out of 5 * movies. Maybe 3.5 if I'm feeling generous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
The original has a lot better character development and more of their character revealed in the way scenes play out. If I had to pick my two biggest complaints about Fincher's version, they would be the differences in the sex scene between Mikael and Lisbeth, and the changes to scene and context in which Lisbeth watches the killer burn to death after wrecking his vehicle. My absolute favorite moment in the Fincher version is when Mikael walks through a door, knocks the bottled water on the top of the refrigerator over so he can catch it as he walks by when it rolls off. Daniel Craig makes it look completely natural and carefree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
The David Fincher Dragon Tattoo movie is so weird because when it came out in theaters it got good reviews and tons of people were saying it was great and then six months later all you hear is people trashing it. I don't know if it's a case of people who already didn't like the book/swedish movie just waiting until the DVD or what but it's always weird seeing public opinion pull a 180 on a movie like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:The David Fincher Dragon Tattoo movie is so weird because when it came out in theaters it got good reviews and tons of people were saying it was great and then six months later all you hear is people trashing it. I don't know if it's a case of people who already didn't like the book/swedish movie just waiting until the DVD or what but it's always weird seeing public opinion pull a 180 on a movie like that. This seems to happen with a lot of remakes and late sequels. I think it's that when a lot people see a remake they are bracing for the worst, but then it turns out to be okay and they get a heavy dose of nostalgia. When the nostalgia wears off and they've gone back and watched the original again, the new one doesn't seem as good any more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Snak posted:This seems to happen with a lot of remakes and late sequels. I think it's that when a lot people see a remake they are bracing for the worst, but then it turns out to be okay and they get a heavy dose of nostalgia. When the nostalgia wears off and they've gone back and watched the original again, the new one doesn't seem as good any more. I can't really think of any other films this applies to. Either they're trashed/controversial when they come out (Lone Ranger, Alice in Wonderland, Tron: Legacy) or they're beloved (Batman, 21 Jump Street, Rocky Balboa).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Snak posted:This seems to happen with a lot of remakes and late sequels. I think it's that when a lot people see a remake they are bracing for the worst, but then it turns out to be okay and they get a heavy dose of nostalgia. When the nostalgia wears off and they've gone back and watched the original again, the new one doesn't seem as good any more. I think it was more of the case that people were already decided that they already liked the film just on the fact of Fincher and the trailer. You see that more and more nowadays, mostly with films that would already have a built in following, like in the case of films involving David Fincher, or Christopher Nolan, or any of the Marvel films. It's perfectly acceptable to be excited about seeing an upcoming film based on elements that one already enjoys, but a lot of people allow that to bias their opinion of the product. Remember when The Dark Knight Rises was released, and there was all that hoopla around Rotten Tomatoes and the one negative review that a critic had given the film? And some fans lost their goddam minds over it? Keep in mind those fans hadn't seen the film, but they had already decided that that film was amazing, and wouldn't even entertain the notion that the film wasn't perfect. Some people have an unhealthy fixation with things things they want to enjoy, and will not allow themselves to even be the slightest bit objective when it comes to developing an opinion towards it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
I have the exact opposite experience of Dragon Tattoo, I came out of the cinema extremely disappointed with it, but over time have grown to really like it. Sure, it's incredibly flawed, but what it does well it does exceptionally well. It's nowhere near Fincher's best, but even then there is a lot to appreciate in the film from a directing stand point.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:I often hear Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo talked about as a film that underperformed at the box office. The movie made $233mil on a budget of $90mil. My understanding was that to be a "hit" you need to make back about double your budget - am I wrong here? How was this movie a flop? It made 100 in the US and 130 in overseas territories. Even with calculating with a generous kickback to the studio that only makes it barely profitable.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:I have the exact opposite experience of Dragon Tattoo, I came out of the cinema extremely disappointed with it, but over time have grown to really like it. Sure, it's incredibly flawed, but what it does well it does exceptionally well. It's nowhere near Fincher's best, but even then there is a lot to appreciate in the film from a directing stand point. I didn't like it when it first came out, but yeah, I've seen it like three times since and it gets more entertaining every time I see it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Does anyone know the name of the song from Oldboy that he loves on the tv? It's the one with the woman singing and Mido sings it at one point? I really like the tune but can't for the life of me find it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Toriori posted:Does anyone know the name of the song from Oldboy that he loves on the tv? It's the one with the woman singing and Mido sings it at one point? I really like the tune but can't for the life of me find it. I think it's "보고싶은 얼굴" by 민해경 (Min Haekyung), but I'm away from my main computer and can't find relevant clips from the film online to compare them directly and be sure. Studio and live versions of the original are all over Youtube if you punch in the Korean title and artist so you can compare, though.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Is The Matrix a film directed by Larry and Andy Wachowski, or Lana and Andy Wachowski? I know obviously Lana/Larry is the same person. Yet in a case where how an author/director identifies themselves has changed, but you're talking about a work made before that change occurred (at least publicly), are you talking about the author as they prefer to be identified now, or at the time of the work?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
Lana. Always Lana. It's really a poo poo thing to refer to someone to refer to them by the wrong name. If for some reason (I can't think of an example right now) you need to specify that she was still using Larry at the time stick that in brackets after with the reason.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Lana. Always Lana. Interesting. Is that from any particular style guide? I'm trying to imagine how a biography of Muhammed Ali would read. Would it say "Muhammed Ali was born to Cassius and Odessa Clay in 1942" and refer to him as Ali throughout his childhood and adolescence? Certainly that wouldn't happen with a woman who later took her husband's name -- you wouldn't find "Hillary Clinton's 3rd birthday was a momentous event" or w/e.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
It's the same for Wendy Carlos.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Interesting. Is that from any particular style guide? I'm trying to imagine how a biography of Muhammed Ali would read. Would it say "Muhammed Ali was born to Cassius and Odessa Clay in 1942" and refer to him as Ali throughout his childhood and adolescence? Certainly that wouldn't happen with a woman who later took her husband's name -- you wouldn't find "Hillary Clinton's 3rd birthday was a momentous event" or w/e. That's referring to someone in biography, not attribution. There is scope there to explain when and how the name changed. I don't actually think it would be odd to say that Ali was born to Cassius and Odessa Clay, that he was named Cassius too, but changed his name upon his conversion in 19xx.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
Treat it like you would treat someone who changed their last name after getting married: if it's relevant (as in, to avoid confusion in a biography) you mention that the name they were given at birth is different than the name they ended up with, but if you're saying they wrote a book or directed a movie, you don't check to see if they got married before or after the book/movie. You just use their current name.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Which director has had the highest ratio of/the most box office failures across their career? I was just looking at Julie Taymor's filmography, and her only movie that made any money was Frida, while Titus, Across the Universe, and The Tempest were all massive flops. Surely there'd be better examples though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Interesting. Is that from any particular style guide? I'm trying to imagine how a biography of Muhammed Ali would read. Would it say "Muhammed Ali was born to Cassius and Odessa Clay in 1942" and refer to him as Ali throughout his childhood and adolescence? Certainly that wouldn't happen with a woman who later took her husband's name -- you wouldn't find "Hillary Clinton's 3rd birthday was a momentous event" or w/e. A cursory look at an Ali biography has this sentence: "Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., as Ali was once known, was born..." and then refers to Ali from then on. Also, the AP Stylebook is pretty clear on referring to people by the names they publicly live by, just look at Chelsea Manning
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
So this may seem a bit strange, but I'm looking for examples of things that have happened specifically during the production of a film that have lowered interest in it or given it bad publicity (as in bad publicity that really is bad).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Sirocco posted:So this may seem a bit strange, but I'm looking for examples of things that have happened specifically during the production of a film that have lowered interest in it or given it bad publicity (as in bad publicity that really is bad). People died on the set of The Twilight Zone movie.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Specifically one of the lead actors and some loving kids were killed on the set. It was a really big deal and the shoot probably was ignoring child labor laws.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Not probably, it was the only thing Landis would cop to.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
The Viking/White Thunder (a Canadian early sound film) had an explosion during filming that killed 27 people including the director, cinematographer, and most of the crew.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Sirocco posted:So this may seem a bit strange, but I'm looking for examples of things that have happened specifically during the production of a film that have lowered interest in it or given it bad publicity (as in bad publicity that really is bad). Well, there was the GI Joe sequel that had promotional material and trailers issued for it for the summer of 2012. It was then pulled and delayed 9 months for reshoots because But I don't think that's the "bad" you're looking for.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Sirocco posted:So this may seem a bit strange, but I'm looking for examples of things that have happened specifically during the production of a film that have lowered interest in it or given it bad publicity (as in bad publicity that really is bad). A few months ago there was an on-set death of a crew member while filming Midnight Rider, which later came out to have been under circumstances that should have been avoided, and now the movie is probably not going to get made.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Sirocco posted:So this may seem a bit strange, but I'm looking for examples of things that have happened specifically during the production of a film that have lowered interest in it or given it bad publicity (as in bad publicity that really is bad). It doesn't really fit, but my mind keeps wandering back to The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
The reason I'm asking is 'cos I'm making a small computer game where the player has the role of the producer. During the production stage there's a chance of random events that can either affect public interest in the film or the quality of the film itself. So I've got one-line events like these:code:code:So yeah, any events large or small would be useful to me. I was just really struggling to think of stuff that makes people less interested in seeing a new movie before it's released. You can PM me if you want to avoid clogging up the thread if you prefer. Sirocco fucked around with this message at 17:34 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Jim Carey spoke out against the violence in Kick-rear end 2, and the trailer for (I think) Gangland had a brief clip of people standing behind a mpvie screen and shooting at the audience that was pulled and reshot after the Aurora theater shooting.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Jim Carey spoke out against the violence in Kick-rear end 2, and the trailer for (I think) Gangland had a brief clip of people standing behind a mpvie screen and shooting at the audience that was pulled and reshot after the Aurora theater shooting. Gangster Squad, yeah. On a less horrific note, when the 1981 movie The Legend of the Lone Ranger was coming out, the copyright owners tried to sue Clayton Moore, who had played the Ranger on TV, to stop him making personal appearances as the character. They technically succeeded and he couldn't appear in the mask (but could wear the rest of the costume), but of course this made it look like they were depriving a poor old man of a source of income. It's hard to know whether this contributed to the movie's failure but it definitely sparked a backlash, especially against the movie's star Kilnton Spilsbury.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Thank you, those were all great!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
And of course there is the John Wayne Genghis Khan movie (The Conquerer) that was shot too close to fallout from a nuclear test site, half the cast and crew died of cancer. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/374/did-john-wayne-die-of-cancer-caused-by-a-radioactive-movie-set Though of course that didn't come out until years later, didn't cause any pre-release bad publicity.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:18
|
|
