|
CzarChasm posted:Along those same lines, I have to imagine that if you are making a bio-pic then you don't have that "This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to any persons, living or dead..." disclaimer at the end, right? I haven't checked but yes. It wouldn't be worth a drat anyway in those circumstances.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
A lot of times they'll have similar disclaimers about the parts they had to fictionalize, though. I've been watching the Carlos miniseries and each installment opens with a pretty interesting disclaimer along the lines of "This film has been heavily researched, but due to the controversial aspects of Carlos' life, this should be taken as a work of fiction."
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
That Carlos is pretty drat good. I watched it years ago on Netflix. Is it still up there? I should watch it again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:That Carlos is pretty drat good. I watched it years ago on Netflix. Is it still up there? I should watch it again. It is. I still haven't watched part 3, but as I said in gen chat, I'm already prepared to declare it one of the best movies I've ever seen. Extremely drat good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Along those same lines, I have to imagine that if you are making a bio-pic then you don't have that "This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to any persons, living or dead..." disclaimer at the end, right? There is a disclaimer but it's different. It says something like "some of the depictions are based on actual persons are an amalgamation of several persons for fictional purposes. events may have been changed for dramatic effect".
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Along those same lines, I have to imagine that if you are making a bio-pic then you don't have that "This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to any persons, living or dead..." disclaimer at the end, right? You should watch Wired, the John Belushi bio that had 99% of the names changed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:You should watch Wired, the John Belushi bio that had 99% of the names changed. Didn't it also piss off almost everybody who cared about John?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Yep the book and the movie was about how he was a nogood junkie
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
I love workprints?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Aurora-Capitah posted:I love workprints? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gId6nrMDmUU
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
drat I thought it would be a workprint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Aurora-Capitah posted:I love workprints? Wolverine Origins was amazing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5AsOEk-ZJU
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Wolverine Origins was amazing Are you sure that those aren't switched?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Wolverine Origins was amazing Yep. Shame there hasn't been any similar leaks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Aurora-Capitah posted:Yep. Shame there hasn't been any similar leaks. Yeah, shame no one else went to prison for a year for leaking an unreleased movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Yeah, shame no one else went to prison for a year for leaking an unreleased movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Wolverine Origins was amazing I kinda want to see the film just for the Deadpool Sword Twirling Scene...
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Does anyone know of films or TV programmes featuring CCTV footage of armed robberies or heists? The more obscure the better! (We want to license it, so obscure = cheap).
therattle fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
therattle posted:Does anyone know of films or TV programmes featuring CCTV footage of armed robberies or heists? The more obscure the better! (We want to license it, so obscure = cheap). No idea about licensing but what about Crimewatch or local equivalents for inspiration?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
I remember reading a post a year or two ago here about some IMAX theaters not actually being true IMAX. Can any elaborate? I seem to recall something about selling off the name, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Here's an article on it, and there are various lists floating around the internet. Basically a real IMAX screen is gigantic, almost eighty feet tall, while fake IMAX screens are just the regular cinema screen moved forward a few rows with beefier sound. You can definitely tell if it's a real IMAX screen because it's really hard to see the whole thing at once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
The beefier sound is pretty neat, though. That's not to say it's worth the ticket price, or that it isn't worth the ticket price, but there you go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Not sure what fake IMAX is, but the IMAX movies I've seen (last time was Baraka), the screen has been fuckoff huge and covering basically your whole field of view. Also, the seats were at such a steep incline that it feels like you're going to launch out of your seat and tumble down over people if you look down. That's the edge of the screen going all the way out, if you look ahead you can only see the screen and nothing else (Planetariet in Copenhagen, Denmark).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
I believe that is OMNIMAX.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I believe that is OMNIMAX. Ah thanks. Whatever it's called, it rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Yeah, I saw that Michael Jordan IMAX thing on it and it owned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I believe that is OMNIMAX. Yea IMAX is loving huge and dominates an entire wall, but OMNIMAX takes it a step further by saying 'gently caress you I want the roof too'. I'm looking forward to HYPERMAX where you just go into a perfect sphere room that's a screen and speaker combo and just get blown to bits by The Hobbit or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
FYI, Baraka was shot in "regular" 65mm. IMAX uses 65mm film, but it's run horizontal instead of vertical. The same filmmaker (Ron Fricke) did make an IMAX film called Chronos, which is pretty much 45 minutes of IMAX time lapses. Just as beautiful, even if not as reflective as Baraka. Samsara was also shot in standard 65mm and is fantastic. And on that note, there's actually an IMAX re-release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in the works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:And on that note, there's actually an IMAX re-release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in the works. That sounds terrible. Why would they do that? I hate and do not want that, not at all, and certainly I don't want a source or more info of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:That sounds terrible. Why would they do that? I hate and do not want that, not at all, and certainly I don't want a source or more info of any kind. In70mm.com mentions an IMAX 3-D release in the works, but it's probably going to be just regular IMAX. There's no way his estate would OK a 3-D conversion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:FYI, Baraka was shot in "regular" 65mm. IMAX uses 65mm film, but it's run horizontal instead of vertical. The same filmmaker (Ron Fricke) did make an IMAX film called Chronos, which is pretty much 45 minutes of IMAX time lapses. Just as beautiful, even if not as reflective as Baraka. Samsara was also shot in standard 65mm and is fantastic. Ya that is true. Baraka didn't fill the screen but it wasn't a problem unless you were actively focusing on the sides. If you were just in the chair you were pretty much covered w the projected image.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
If a screenplay needs to have 5 writers brought in and a dozen revisions during the course of production, how does it get that far in the first place? I guess I mean are scripts bought purely on faith in the general concept, state of the market and expectation that it will be chopped up along the way? Are there 'ideas' screenwriters who are regularly paid for having great concepts and knowing that some studio hack will turn it into something watchable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
Part of the problem is just the length it takes most movies to get from script to screen. While a few "super hot" scripts may be bought up and rushed into production because they're really good or the property is hot, most are bought up and it could be anywhere from 5 to 20 years before they get into production. Once a script starts to languish as well, it's very easy for it to start being "passed around" hollywood until it's been massaged and workshopped by every and any writer that has a passing interest in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Can anyone explain A Safe Place to me? I'm working through the BBS Criterion set at the moment, and I've been told by a few people to just skip the disc with Drive, He Said and A Safe Place. Having watched Drive, He Said and thinking it's not all that bad, I figured A Safe Place was probably decent too. Man was I wrong. From what I can tell it's about a woman with brain damage who's incapable of making sense, this Elvis Costello looking dude who's willing to ignore that because she's sort of hot, and Orson Welles doing magic. Seriously, what's up with this movie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
1 800 J JAMES posted:If a screenplay needs to have 5 writers brought in and a dozen revisions during the course of production, how does it get that far in the first place? I guess I mean are scripts bought purely on faith in the general concept, state of the market and expectation that it will be chopped up along the way? Are there 'ideas' screenwriters who are regularly paid for having great concepts and knowing that some studio hack will turn it into something watchable? You can write an idea on spec and sell that to a studio. John Hughes made quite a bit of money from it, which is why you still get things like 'Maid In Manhattan' and 'Drillbit Taylor' long after he was done with Hollywood. Hughes used to be an ad-man, so he had no problem coming up with dozens of spec ideas to sell to studios. I wouldn't be surprised if there's not a stack of Hughes pitches in a Paramount vault somewhere. Basically what can happen is a script is written. Then a producer wants a re-write and doesn't want the original writer working on it, so he brings someone in. A Director gets it, then he brings someone in as well. Then the actor does the same. That's not even going into uncredited writers. There's also the WGA, who give out credits depending on what a writer did to a script, not what's in the finished film. So you can have all those writers credited, but it might turn out that they only did a small bit of work. Writer's credits are weird. For example Joss Whedon essentially wrote Speed. Graham Yost (The credited writer) has said that he thinks about one line of dialogue from his script actually appeared in the finished movie. Whedon also took Reeve's character away from being a 'hot shot maverick' type who was spouting one liners and made him a more lateral thinking character who just wants to make sure everyone stays alive. The reason that Whedon doesn't get credit is because he didn't change enough of the plot. The barebones of the plot is the same. So despite the fact that Whedon essentially re-wrote the whole script, he gets no credit for it. Same thing happened with Ed Norton on The Hulk. He did a complete script re-write but wasn't allowed to change the plot, so he doesn't get a credit (Even though the shooting script bares his name). Writers' credits are weird. Basically with some small exceptions, don't trust who you see as being the writer, because chances are it changed hands a few times first (And chances are that Frank Darabont/Carrie Fisher probably worked on it).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
A lot of those movies with 5 writers don't start out as scripts, they start out as a producer saying "let's do another spiderman movie"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
The WGA rules are kind of bizarre considering that giving more people proper credit would make more sense rather than withholding it. Although, it may also be lack of dilligence on the filmmakers since Richard Donner got around it for Superman '78 by listing Tom Mankewicz as "creative consultant" since he couldn't be credited as a writer, despite completely re-writing the scripts by Mario Puzo and David Newman. Of course, it's not exactly a new thing since there's films where the credited director barely had any involvement, let alone writers. Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Random question about Harold & Maude. I never understood Harold's reaction in this scene:quote:Harold tells Maude when they are talking candidly at her house that he has "died a few times". He describes how, when he was at boarding school, he set his chemistry lab on fire and, escaping through a hole in the floor, went home, believing his school career to be at an end. When the police came to his house, Harold watched as they told his mother that he had died in the fire, and saw her collapse into the policemen's arms. As he reaches this part of the story, Harold bursts into tears and declares, "I decided then I enjoyed being dead."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:The WGA rules are kind of bizarre considering that giving more people proper credit would make more sense rather than withholding it. Although, it may also be lack of dilligence on the filmmakers since Richard Donner got around it for Superman '78 by listing Tom Mankewicz as "creative consultant" since he couldn't be credited as a writer, despite completely re-writing the scripts by Mario Puzo and David Newman. What the hell? The guy who wrote the Godfather scripted the first Superman movie? ED: I suddenly feel, after typing, like this is not the first time this is pointed out and I've reacted with disbelief.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:The WGA rules are kind of bizarre considering that giving more people proper credit would make more sense rather than withholding it. Although, it may also be lack of dilligence on the filmmakers since Richard Donner got around it for Superman '78 by listing Tom Mankewicz as "creative consultant" since he couldn't be credited as a writer, despite completely re-writing the scripts by Mario Puzo and David Newman. Credits decide residuals, so I think the more writing credits there are, the less money everyone gets. (At least I figure the studios have to have a maximum they're setting aside for residual payments, because they're not going to let talent claim that much of their revenue.) This is also why they have that stupid "Directors and Producers have to do more than half the script to claim writing credits" rule, to prevent those guys from hogging all the cash. (Hell, at least a few WGA members have said they've always thought that rule was dumb, but reflexively vote to keep it because producers make enough money, dammit.) Personally I think adding some BTL credits would help. We credit assistant directors and second unit directors and so on, so there should be a chunk of the end roll set aside for "First Draft Rewrite", "Second Draft Polish", etc. They wouldn't make more money but it would at least make things more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 19:13
|
|
