|
The woman screaming "NOOO! NOOO! NOOO!" in Hertzfeldt's Meaning of Life always gives me chills: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMsyOowMaEY&t=221s [3:40 or so]
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
I recently saw a few action/adventure movies from the 90s (namely Lost in Space, Waterworld, and Ghosts of Mars) and something about them strikes me as...samey. Lighting and shot choice seems to be much of it, as well as certain specific cliches in the action scenes. I have no formal education in cinematography, so can someone tell me if I'm on to something or anything at all? They just seem very plain and functional compared to, say, Snyder or Bay or Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
That's just how movies looked at the time, just a step up from DS9. Check out also 70s big-budget movies, which all have bright, sharp lighting. They just shat 'em out like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
What does it mean when a movie is referred to as eg an Italy/Spain coproduction? Does that mean public money is being used to fund the production? Or just that production companies from two different countries are involved?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 06:08
|
|
man
|
dokmo posted:What does it mean when a movie is referred to as eg an Italy/Spain coproduction? Does that mean public money is being used to fund the production? Or just that production companies from two different countries are involved? The latter usually to facilitate the former. I'll post in more detail when not mobile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
dokmo posted:What does it mean when a movie is referred to as eg an Italy/Spain coproduction? Does that mean public money is being used to fund the production? Or just that production companies from two different countries are involved? For China it's to help with distribution. China limits the number of 'foreign' films that can show in the country. Next time you're at a big blockbuster check out how it's coproduced by a Chinese company to help get into that market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
In Europe most films are at least partially made with public money through film funds and such. If you make a movie in collaboration with a foreign company you not only have the ability to apply to your local funds but also theirs. In addition to EU funds of course. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
^^^ What those guys said. But here is more detail: Many countries have a governmental body (a "competent authority") which verifies whether a film qualifies as that country's film. Co-production treaties have rules and guidelines as to the relative technical, creative and financial participation of the co-producing countries. Qualification is usually governed by how much production activity takes place in that country, where the people involved are from, and where the money comes from. For instance, the BFI and DCMS in the UK issue certificates of British nationality; the CNC does it in France. Being a national film allows one to access certain governmental funds, eg in the UK it allows one to get the UK tax credit (20% of qualifying spend) and the BFI can't, to my knowledge, invest in films which are not UK-qualifying. An official co-production allows a film to be more than one nationality, eg a French-UK-Irish film would qualify as French, British, AND Irish and thus be capable of receiving incentives in all of those territories. All co-production treaties stipulate that the participating countries are listed, which is why you see "A France-Spain co-production". In Europe the main treaty governing co-productions is the European Convention on Cinematic Co-Production. Qualifying as an European film also helps distributors sell the film to broadcasters, as broadcasters often have quotas for their own country's films, and for European films. European films which are distributed in a certain number of territories can also apply for EU MEDIA funding to help with distribution costs, although I don't know if that is discretionary or automatic. To qualify as European you have to get 15 out of 19 points, with points awarded for key creative personnel: writer, director, producer, lead cast (3 for lead, 2 for 2nd lead, 1 for 3rd lead), HODs. Not all co-productions are official - you can have unofficial co-productions where two or more companies make a film together without accessing any national incentives (as is the case with almost any American co-production). Or, as you can only have one official co-producer in each country, another company from the same country can be an unofficial co-producer on an official co-production (eg a UK-France official co-production can have a second unofficial French and/or British co-producer). For example, I worked on "A Dangerous Method", which was an official Germany-Canada co-production (Canada has loads of bilateral treaties), an unofficial UK-German co-pro, and also had two unofficial German co-producers. "Louder Than Bombs" was a Norwegian-Danish-French co-production which received funds from the NFI, DFI and CNC (national film funding bodies in each territory) as well as Eurimages (European discretionary funding body), and the Norwegian subsidy. I produced "Tiger House" as an official South African-UK co-pro: we shot in South Africa (accessing SA tax credit and IDC equity) and posted in the UK (obtaining UK tax credit on UK spend). I hope that is somewhat clear! Probably more info than you were looking for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
No that's great. Thanks for all the info.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
therattle posted:Lots of detail gently caress being an accountant on your movies. Holy poo poo that would get messy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Looten Plunder posted:gently caress being an accountant on your movies. Holy poo poo that would get messy. Oh ya. Each territory takes care of its own accounts but one has to create an integrated cost report (and one needs a cost report in each currency) . When we made Tiger House we used an accounting service that operated both in SA and the UK to avoid those kinds of issues. They can become hideously complicated. I try to stay out of it because I glaze over but sometimes it's unavoidable. That said, many films are coproductions and most accountants have experience of them and the integration requirements. Edit: forgot to add how utterly crucial a good accountant is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
Gonna watch through Dekalog soon. Should I watch the shorter or extended versions of Love and Killing? I've mostly heard the shorter version is better for Killing, but not as much about Love. Or maybe it was the other way round e: meant to post this in GenChat but it sorta works here too I guess Escobarbarian fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Why do Andrew Garfield and Aaron Johnson still have a career, considering they are probably the worst actors of our generation? Johnson married a 42 yrs old Hollywood director when he was 19(!) so I suppose I can answer that one for myself, but afaik Garfield doesn't have any particular recommendation in the business, reportedly behaves like a spoiled douchebag and still somehow landed a lead role in Scorsese's next movie Silence. He looks terrible in the trailer obviously, color me surprised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
I never rated Aaron Johnson at all - he's absolutely awful in Godzilla - but he's loving amazing in Nocturnal Animals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:I never rated Aaron Johnson at all - he's absolutely awful in Godzilla - but he's loving amazing in Nocturnal Animals. I actually didn't mind him in the first Kick-rear end but from then on he just phoned it in all the time. He's just one of those incredibly expressionless and monotone guys that somehow end up A-list actors because someone pushed them there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Kawabata posted:Why do Andrew Garfield and Aaron Johnson still have a career, considering they are probably the worst actors of our generation? Garfield is a great actor. When I saw him perform with PSH on Broadway in Death of a Salesman he was just as good if not better than Hoffman. Edit - he was also good in Social Network
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
bows1 posted:Garfield is a great actor. When I saw him perform with PSH on Broadway in Death of a Salesman he was just as good if not better than Hoffman. Yeah, and he was also only a "spoiled brat" on ASM2 and who wouldn't of been?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Kawabata posted:I actually didn't mind him in the first Kick-rear end but from then on he just phoned it in all the time. He's just one of those incredibly expressionless and monotone guys that somehow end up A-list actors because someone pushed them there. I haven't seen Anna Karenina but I've heard good things about the movie. Was he good in that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Looten Plunder posted:I haven't seen Anna Karenina but I've heard good things about the movie. Was he good in that? No, super wooden and expressionless as usual. The movie as a whole was very watchable though, and it's not like he ruined it. He looks good on the screen, it's just he barely does anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:Gonna watch through Dekalog soon. Should I watch the shorter or extended versions of Love and Killing? I've mostly heard the shorter version is better for Killing, but not as much about Love. Or maybe it was the other way round I'd watch the ten episodes from that new Criterion release and then I'd watch the two longer versions a few months later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Kawabata posted:No, super wooden and expressionless as usual. The movie as a whole was very watchable though, and it's not like he ruined it. He looks good on the screen, it's just he barely does anything. Tbf if I scored a rich & attractive older man/woman, I'd probably just stop using facial expressions too. What's even the point after that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Office Space & Short Circuit aside, what are folk's favourite film scenes of humans trashing machinery/technology/robots?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Chappie
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
"You're terminated, fucker!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
The ending to Rambo: First Blood Part II.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
ynohtna posted:Office Space & Short Circuit aside, what are folk's favourite film scenes of humans trashing machinery/technology/robots? They really did a number on RoboCop in RoboCop 2: https://youtu.be/IoavfE6TCbw?t=3m24s
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Kylo ren multiple times in TFA
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Great recommendations, thanks folks! My robots are now incredibly for their uprising against oppressive fleshies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:Chappie That director's career is in the toilet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
ynohtna posted:Office Space & Short Circuit aside, what are folk's favourite film scenes of humans trashing machinery/technology/robots? Wargames, metaphysically speaking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Cuck_Mulligan posted:That director's career is in the toilet. He's doing the next Alien film
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Looten Plunder posted:He's doing the next Alien film The next one is Alien: Covenant directed by Ridley Scott. Bit soon to know if Neill Blomkamp is really going to be allowed to make the one after that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
I havent seen District 9 yet despite owning it but I adore the rest of his movies so I dont care if someone else doesnt like them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The next one is Alien: Covenant directed by Ridley Scott. Bit soon to know if Neill Blomkamp is really going to be allowed to make the one after that. Also, isn't the plan for Covenant to be the first of a trilogy? Would Blomkamp have to then wait for all 3, or does he get snuck in between two, ala Rogue One?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Is Alien:Covenant going to be Prometheus 2 or is that going to be a different movie?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Is Alien:Covenant going to be Prometheus 2 or is that going to be a different movie? Covenant is Prometheus 2, yes -- both Fassbender and Rapace are in it, and the gimmick is that Covenant is the ship that finds Shaw's tracking signal. There was a lot of talk about it being a trilogy, but I think Scott is re-thinking a lot of those commitments (like handing Blade Runner 2 over to Villeneuve) because of his age.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:Also, isn't the plan for Covenant to be the first of a trilogy? Would Blomkamp have to then wait for all 3, or does he get snuck in between two, ala Rogue One? Not to be pessimistic, but I wouldn't bank on Ridley Scott living long enough to make three more Alien films.Especially since the Blade Runner sequel is gonna be sandwiched in there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
He's just a producer on that, and it's already well into filming. I don't think he'll make all 3 because he doesn't seem to be the sort of guy who wants to have his last film be a dozenth Alien film, but I think in an ideal case he'd hand over the reigns and executive produce them in the same capacity that George Lucas did for the original Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Eh Scott is only 78. He's got at least a decade left. E: He's so gonna die now that I jinxed it and because 2016 is the worst year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
I doubt there's anything more than vague plans for what happens after Alien: Covenant and it will depends on how it performs.got any sevens posted:I havent seen District 9 yet despite owning it but I adore the rest of his movies so I dont care if someone else doesnt like them. Man, see it. It's great, maybe his best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:02
|
|