|
Wasn't B&W out of necessity for Clerks? I'd imagine that even in 1994, 16mm reversal would be about as cheap as you can get with a film shoot.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
With Clerks the B&W works to it's advantage because it gives it the look of security cam footage (even though the movie doesn't ever claim or pretend that it is) and it successfully distracts from alot of the movie's directorial shortcomings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
B&W really is the best way for an inexperienced filmmaker to start out. Shooting in color, whether it's video or film, is completely unforgiving of inexact white balancing, lighting, shadows, and continuity. Although, Ektachrome reversal seemed to look great regardless (see the restored Manos: The Hands of Fate).
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Yeah, IIRC it was shot because it was cheap. Smith dropped out of a (for profit?) film school and was literally working at that "qwik stop" where they filmed. The shutters don't open in the morning because Smith was allowed to shoot at night.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Clerks talk is coincidental because I just revisited the animated series today for the first time in about 8 years. In case you were wondering, it totally holds up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
nocal posted:Smith dropped out of a (for profit?) film school axleblaze posted:With Clerks the B&W works to it's advantage because it gives it the look of security cam footage (even though the movie doesn't ever claim or pretend that it is) and it successfully distracts from alot of the movie's directorial shortcomings. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
nocal posted:As long as we're trading memories, I heard somewhere that Harvey Weinstein has edited the gently caress out of an awful lot of movies. Apparently he (or whoever he employs to do it, if it's not literally his own hands) is pretty good at it or we'd probably hear about it more. That is, we're only hearing that poo poo when a movie flops. Harvey has editors who recut movies that he has purchased as well as movies he is producing. I turned down a job offer with TWC a few years ago because of all the terrible stories about him. I've heard crazy things first hand from friends of mine who've worked on TWC and Miramax films. I won't share the specific stories in this thread but he's well known for this poo poo. People call him Harvey Scissorhands. Edited to clarify: His penchant for cutting is well documented and well known outside the inner circles of the industry - enough to have earned him a "nickname" (Scissorhands) in the press. Privately nobody calls him that. "Harvey" is all we say, and it's all that ever needs to be said. Five Cent Deposit fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Harvey has editors who recut movies that he has purchased as well as movies he is producing. I turned down a job offer with TWC a few years ago because of all the terrible stories about him. I've heard crazy things first hand from friends of mine who've worked on TWC and Miramax films. I won't share the specific stories in this thread but he's well known for this poo poo. People call him Harvey Scissorhands. Let us not forget that he cut Cinema Paradiso down from the very long not very successful original film into the Oscar-winner everybody knows and loves. Not all of his cuts are bad. There was a recent discussion here of in general chat about how Kevin Smith was grateful that Harvey made him cut the original ending of Clerks. Directors often won't/can't see how their films could be cut and the films often benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Harvey has editors who recut movies that he has purchased as well as movies he is producing. I turned down a job offer with TWC a few years ago because of all the terrible stories about him. I've heard crazy things first hand from friends of mine who've worked on TWC and Miramax films. I won't share the specific stories in this thread but he's well known for this poo poo. People call him Harvey Scissorhands. This all leads to one of my favorite stories about Miramax and Ghibli. Wikipedia posted:On hearing Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein would try to cut Princess Mononoke to make it more marketable, one of Studio Ghibli's producers sent an authentic katana with a simple message: "No cuts".
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Sometimes movies need stronger editing, I get that. Thing is, sometimes they don't and TWC may very well still go ahead and gut a movie that's already well paced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
We've seen what happens when directors are surrounded by yes men in their editing rooms and it's not pretty - see Peter Jackson's King Kong. I think the problem is cutting a film to be "more marketable" 9 times out of 10 means "dumb it down."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:We've seen what happens when directors are surrounded by yes men in their editing rooms and it's not pretty - see Peter Jackson's King Kong. I think the problem is cutting a film to be "more marketable" 9 times out of 10 means "dumb it down." We also know what happens when executives think they are right and the director is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RCvs3cA6PU
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:We've seen what happens when directors are surrounded by yes men in their editing rooms and it's not pretty - see Peter Jackson's King Kong. I think the problem is cutting a film to be "more marketable" 9 times out of 10 means "dumb it down." King Kong has zero extraneous scenes unfortunately
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:King Kong has zero extraneous scenes unfortunately I think everything after they leave New York at the beginning of the movie is extranious. God I hated that movie. Like the part where Adrien Brody is greenscreened in running between the legs of stampeding dinosaurs. Or the part where the humans and Kong are both trapped in vines, which are hilariously the same proportions to the humans in the human shots as they are to Kong in the shots of him trapped in the vines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:King Kong has zero extraneous scenes unfortunately I haven't seen the film, but it's not just about too many scenes, it's often about entering scenes too early, leaving them too late (often with unnecessary dialogue), and spending too much time on certain shots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Also, a shitton of extraneous scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Also, a shitton of extraneous scenes. Yeah, the entire first act in New York was something that wasn't in the original movie and didn't really contribute much to the remake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Yeah, the entire first act in New York was something that wasn't in the original movie and didn't really contribute much to the remake. I thought it was the only good part of the movie, but I only saw it once when it came out, so maybe I'm dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Yeah, the part in New York was good, it's the journey on the boat and the numerous side stories for the crew that could've been removed. Once their on the island too the action scenes could've easily been trimmed down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
I watched the new King Kong recently and liked it a lot, but it would have been much better as miniseries than a ludicrously long film. Though obviously no miniseries would have the budget to make it look good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
People talk about some of the shots of the dinosaurs having bad CGI, but for my money, the worst part was when the natives were pole-vaulting onto the boat. That looked horrible. Kong himself always looked great, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
King Kong 1933 is 100 minutes, King Kong 1976 is 134 minutes, and King Kong 2005 is 187 minutes, and there's really no piece of the story that wasn't told best in 1933. The shocking thing is that, much as I love it, there are big sections of the original that could be vastly improved with a little work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
penismightier posted:The shocking thing is that, much as I love it, there are big sections of the original that could be vastly improved with a little work. What are you thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
DNS posted:What are you thinking of? Much of the human drama is perfunctory at best. Depending on your mood and the crowd you're with, it works really well as a sort of surreal comedy, but it's a delicate tightrope and could use a freshening up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
The thing I couldn't stand about the Jackson King Kong was the action scenes. Survival in them just seemed to just be based on pure luck on the parts of the characters with just an explosion of cgi coming from all sides that arbitrarily killed off who it felt like killing off. If the characters really have no say in their survival at any given moment it's hard for me to really get all that into what's going on. I need to at least maintain the illusion that the characters have the ability to get out of their situation by a method outside of deus ex machina and there was never a seen where that seemed to be the case. The movie had other problems, but that was the one that stuck out to me, especially with all the time and energy devoted to said scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
I just watched the dinosaur stampede scene again on youtube because it stuck out in my memory as looking terrible. It still does, but more than that it just goes on way to long. see for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LFQun4HQj8 The dinosaurs themselves look pretty good, the compositing looks terrible. The part where the raptor is chasing Adrien Brody and Jack Black through the stampede looks extra terrible because somehow the raptor looks pasted in as well, like it was rendered seperately from the stampede.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
That is like a perfect example of what I was talking about. The Dinosaurs stomp some people and miss others. There's no rhyme or reason to it, it just all feels arbitrary. It doesn't help that characters are just sort of running in a straight without it look like they're even trying to avoid stuff but rather making it look like stuff is coincidentally avoiding them. And I know that things like that are like that. Some people will die and other will survive for no real reason or skill behind who lives and dies but it just makes for a dull action scene is all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Yeah a lot of the action scenes feel like an on-rails video game section - Emmerich's 2012 had a lot of that too. The big exception is the T-Rex fight, which is incredible and yet so heavily indebted to the '33 version that I have some difficulty giving it credit.penismightier posted:Much of the human drama is perfunctory at best. Depending on your mood and the crowd you're with, it works really well as a sort of surreal comedy, but it's a delicate tightrope and could use a freshening up. I saw it with an audience recently and there were a lot of good laughs at those interactions, but yeah it's probably the one big area where you could aim to improve on it and likely hit your mark. I never saw the '76 version but that cast has a lot of potential...
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
The Dinosaur Island stuff has always done it for me in Jackson's version. Even in scenes like the linked clip, it has a gleefulness to it that plays well with how lightweight and floaty all the special effects are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
I like the part where the foremost human in the dino stampede waves his tommygun blindly behind him firing. I feel like it should have shown one of the other humans get shot by him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
I genuinely don't understand how the humans are a) keeping up with the dinosaurs and b) somehow running faster than the raptors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
Video Viddy Games posted:I genuinely don't understand how the humans are a) keeping up with the dinosaurs and b) somehow running faster than the raptors. The whole scene just looks like "hey run on a treadmill like you're running for your life and we'll paste in the the danger around you in post" Which is because that's exactly what it is except I doubt they're on a treadmill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
The original King Kong is perfectly paced, but if you are going to remake it, elaborating on the story and coming up with all kinds of crazy embellishments is a perfectly valid way to go. The Jackson remake's a little overlong but I find it a very entertaining indulgence. What I've heard about Weinstein is that you want him to like your movie. If he hates it he'll do whatever he wants to it, if he loves it he'll try to cut it to make it as broadly appealing as possible so more people will see it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:The original King Kong is perfectly paced, but if you are going to remake it, elaborating on the story and coming up with all kinds of crazy embellishments is a perfectly valid way to go. The Jackson remake's a little overlong but I find it a very entertaining indulgence. All of the story elaborations were fine. All of the Star Wars prequal-level special effects sequences that were not really needed is what made it hard to take the movie seriously and pushed the runtime. I mean, there's a scene where they get attacked by giant cgi bugs that doesn't need to be there at all and seems to be purely for gross-out factor, and the aforementioned dino stampede.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Snak posted:All of the story elaborations were fine. All of the Star Wars prequal-level special effects sequences that were not really needed is what made it hard to take the movie seriously and pushed the runtime. I mean, there's a scene where they get attacked by giant cgi bugs that doesn't need to be there at all and seems to be purely for gross-out factor, and the aforementioned dino stampede. spider pit was a deleted scene in the original
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Deleted for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Deleted for a reason. Censors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
The bug pit scene is the one scene where it feels like a proper Peter Jackson movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:The bug pit scene is the one scene where it feels like a proper Peter Jackson movie. I love it when former 80's b-horror directors have big budget movies and sneak some of that into them. The scene in Spider-Man 2 where Doc Ock's tentacles first come alive is pretty awesome too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:spider pit was a deleted scene in the original That doesn't mean that it served a purpose in the remake... The scene could have been done well, but it was done stupidly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 05:30
|
|