|
Cronenberg once described them as a "vestibule". I've always been in favor of that- in the theater, you've already seen a bunch of ads and previews for other things, it helps to have some way to shift you into the mindset of what you're watching now. Credits aren't the only way to do this but I feel like there's a difference between movies which find other ways of establishing themselves (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc.) and movies that just kinda start. Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfc_CrwiE4Y (Edit: It seems like Cronenberg's recent movies have also abandoned credits, which is why I'm wondering if this is mostly the filmmakers' decision or if studios are actively saying "don't have credits at the start of your movie." Like, if a director really wants an opening title sequence, is it something they have to fight for?) Maxwell Lord fucked around with this message at 18:22 on May 29, 2016 |
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
So, there's all these horror movies like Arachnophobia and Frogs and all that about killer vermin and insects and other small animals. Leeches, slugs, worms, etc etc. But has anyone ever made a horror movie about ticks? They just seem like such natural fodder for insect horror but I've never heard of any.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:So, there's all these horror movies like Arachnophobia and Frogs and all that about killer vermin and insects and other small animals. Leeches, slugs, worms, etc etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticks_(film)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Yes. It's called Ticks and it's about ticks that grow giant because weed growers spray their plants with steroids to make them grow faster. edit: Beaten.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Deadpool had a great opening credits sequence for getting people into the mood of the film.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Just watched Panic Room and in one scene Fincher does that thing where the camera approaches then "pushes through" an inanimate object (a stair railing) while the background remains constant. Is this a simple thing to create on film?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Just watched Panic Room and in one scene Fincher does that thing where the camera approaches then "pushes through" an inanimate object (a stair railing) while the background remains constant. Is this a simple thing to create on film? Panic Room has a bunch of cool shots like this. I can't imagine any of them were easy. But maybe. It's been awhile, so I don't remember if they just CGIed it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Snak posted:Panic Room has a bunch of cool shots like this. I can't imagine any of them were easy. But maybe. It's been awhile, so I don't remember if they just CGIed it. Thanks Snak. Yeah there are a lot of interesting shots and I have no idea how they're actually put together if they're not CGied.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
They're CG.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Toebone posted:They're CG. Yep. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdbpCc3OLgA
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Toebone posted:They're CG. If you watch now it's pretty dated, shoddy looking CG too.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Just watched Panic Room and in one scene Fincher does that thing where the camera approaches then "pushes through" an inanimate object (a stair railing) while the background remains constant. Is this a simple thing to create on film? Pretty sure Fincher has one of those in most (all?) his films https://vimeo.com/90519890 Every Scene a Painting has a pretty good analysis of Fincher's use of camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPAloq5MCUA
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Snapchat A Titty posted:Pretty sure Fincher has one of those in most (all?) his films Very cool- thanks for the vids.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
I remember reading about Panic Room about a year before release and how Fincher wanted to have all of these tracks inside the walls with multiple cameras attached so they could move freely through the apartment. I guess they quickly realized how much easier CG would be. I also think Maynard from Tool was Fincher's first choice for playing the Dwight Yokam character. That movie went through a lot of changes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:No one likes opening credits, even when people were "trained" to be used to them. Give me my movie, give it to me now.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
I am sorry for my poor taste and repent of my sins against cinema. I still don't need a vestibule. There are plenty of unentertaining rooms to sit and wait in in this world already.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Cronenberg once described them as a "vestibule". I've always been in favor of that- in the theater, you've already seen a bunch of ads and previews for other things, it helps to have some way to shift you into the mindset of what you're watching now. Credits aren't the only way to do this but I feel like there's a difference between movies which find other ways of establishing themselves (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc.) and movies that just kinda start. Cronenberg is not working in the studio system. His films are all independently made. He can do whatever he wants with credits. If he's dispensed with opening credits it's because he chose to.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I am sorry for my poor taste and repent of my sins against cinema. I still don't need a vestibule. There are plenty of unentertaining rooms to sit and wait in in this world already. Here's another great opening credit sequence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqLIo7M-G7w Carthag Tuek fucked around with this message at 13:33 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:No one likes opening credits, even when people were "trained" to be used to them. Give me my movie, give it to me now. You are wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=875R8kHxzrA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBQJjqnG1iI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QML28YQBvyc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kccafOf4O6Q
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
therattle posted:Cronenberg is not working in the studio system. His films are all independently made. He can do whatever he wants with credits. If he's dispensed with opening credits it's because he chose to. Maybe for his last couple but Eastern Promises was a Weinstein joint. (And it's not like independent investors never make any creative demands, they're just *less* meddling in general.) Like right now it seems equally plausible as a style trend (in particular the Dark Knight seemed to set off a bunch of movies not even showing the title until the end, because "NOW he's the Man of Steel/John Carter On top of the transitory element, I do think one problem is it's making end credits sequences longer and- this is kind of a sticking point for me- you have to show the acting credits twice and the first time it's usually just the actor's names with no indication of who they played. (Though some end title sequences show you the roles or, in the case of a few of the Marvel movies, show you a related image/icon.) Like end credits for major films are already pretty long because you have to list all the visual effects companies and all the names of the animators/renderers/etc. (which is good), and of course Marvel's flicks all have the monk's reward at the end, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
A deity solemnly glides across a cloud-filled sky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk5TNiv8lRI Before swallowing you.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:You are wrong: Heck yeah
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Maybe for his last couple but Eastern Promises was a Weinstein joint. (And it's not like independent investors never make any creative demands, they're just *less* meddling in general.) I'm telling you, he can do what he wants with credits. I've been involved in negotiating his director deal; I know what he is accustomed to. (I'm even In the main credits of A Dangerous Method!). Eastern Promises might have been distributed by TWC in the US but they had nothing to do with producing the film. We are focussing on Cronenberg but almost every decent indie director could have front credits if they wanted. It is not the kind of thing that producers or financiers would really care about. therattle fucked around with this message at 21:47 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Hey, does anyone know who the voice over guy was for old grindhouse type movie trailers? This dude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsH8Y5wpDSs
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:Hey, does anyone know who the voice over guy was for old grindhouse type movie trailers? Victor Caroli? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0139026/ Edit: all I can find about him is Transformers poo poo, but I'm sure it's him at the start of his career. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9Xb7QQeHfc I AM GRANDO fucked around with this message at 00:57 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Is there an aggregator for film essays? Something that compiles film essays from the likes of The Dissolve and AV Club.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
xcore posted:Is there an aggregator for film essays? Something that compiles film essays from the likes of The Dissolve and AV Club. I keep tabs on the 35mm on vimeo. You get a decent amount of stuff there, but only things that would be on vimeo. Aside from that, I just follow every frame a painting, nerd writer, now you see it, and no small parts on YouTube.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
couldcareless posted:I keep tabs on the 35mm on vimeo. You get a decent amount of stuff there, but only things that would be on vimeo. Aside from that, I just follow every frame a painting, nerd writer, now you see it, and no small parts on YouTube. I love me some video essays and I'll definitely check out 35mm (I really need to create a Vimeo account so I can save some Favourites) but I was wondering about print essays/columns.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:If you watch now it's pretty dated, shoddy looking CG too. It's not too terrible. The great thing about Fincher and CG (and I loving love his use of CG) is that his contrast dingy lighting themes usually let even old CG play pretty well. I mean you can tell it's CG, but for some reason it rarely takes me out of the story. Which also speaks to how well he uses it to tell a story.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Jurassic Park: Do they ever explain why the Triceratops was sick? Laura Dern assumes it's the lilacs, but when she inspects the pile of poo she doesn't find any, and the vet says it happens every six weeks. Does it have something to do with the sex-changing? Or the fact that the Brachisaurus is sick also?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Jurassic Park: Do they ever explain why the Triceratops was sick? Laura Dern assumes it's the lilacs, but when she inspects the pile of poo she doesn't find any, and the vet says it happens every six weeks. Does it have something to do with the sex-changing? Or the fact that the Brachisaurus is sick also? The explanation was cut from the movie, but it's in the book. Triceratops (and the stegosaurus in the book) have a gizzard to help digest their food, so they need to swallow stones to help with grinding every 6 weeks or so. The triceratops was accidentally eating some of the poison berries when it would pick up new stones. There's a bit of a hint at it with Laura Dern picking up and looking at some of the stones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Jurassic Park: Do they ever explain why the Triceratops was sick? Laura Dern assumes it's the lilacs, but when she inspects the pile of poo she doesn't find any, and the vet says it happens every six weeks. Does it have something to do with the sex-changing? Or the fact that the Brachisaurus is sick also? They cut it from the movie, but in the book, the illness is caused by eating rocks (to use as gizzard stones) that are near the lilacs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Toebone posted:The explanation was cut from the movie, but it's in the book. Triceratops (and the stegosaurus in the book) have a gizzard to help digest their food, so they need to swallow stones to help with grinding every 6 weeks or so. The triceratops was accidentally eating some of the poison berries when it would pick up new stones. There's a bit of a hint at it with Laura Dern picking up and looking at some of the stones. It's also reinforcing the theme of the park not working because it cares about appearance over practicality; the lilacs are poisonous but they planted them in the park because they looked good and the dinos suffered as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:It's also reinforcing the theme of the park not working because it cares about appearance over practicality; the lilacs are poisonous but they planted them in the park because they looked good and the dinos suffered as a result. Equating the lilacs to the dinosaurs (and the miniature elephant), also. They are not living ornaments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Yeah, but it's weird that she doesn't find any in the droppings, since THEY ARE EATING THEM. Eating them by accident shouldn't stop them from pooping them out?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Snak posted:Yeah, but it's weird that she doesn't find any in the droppings, since THEY ARE EATING THEM. Eating them by accident shouldn't stop them from pooping them out? They figure it out because the rocks on the ground are essentially polished, so they realize the dinosaurs are throwing them up - and the lilac berries are being thrown up alongside. So the poison still enters the dinos bodies, but the berries don't come out in their stool. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
But then why did they have to inspect Jeff Goldblums poops in a later scene?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:But then why did they have to inspect Jeff Goldblums poops in a later scene? Sexual fetish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:They figure it out because the rocks on the ground are essentially polished, so they realize the dinosaurs are throwing them up - and the lilac berries are being thrown up alongside. So the poison still enters the dinos bodies, but the berries don't come out in their stool. Oh that makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
In the book they find another poison plant near swimming pool at the resort where they hold out during the raptor attack. It is some sort of poison ivy on steroids, can kill children. They didn't just skip checking what harm plants could do to the dinosaurs, they skipped checking what harm plants could do period.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 08:09
|
|
