|
I just read through a very early draft of Superbad and loved the experience of comparing it to the filmed version. It really highlighted the process of refining and improving seemingly minor details in order to make something wildly better, tighter, and more cohesive in a finalized form. Can anyone recommend other scripts that give that show the same processes, and, perhaps, point out where to find them? The only other ones I can think of are Star Wars and Back to the Future, which I've read at least bits and pieces of already.
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
mojo1701a posted:It's called an L cut. I've also heard it referred to as a J-cut, since the audio precedes the corresponding video on an editing timeline. As an editing technique it can also be referred to more simply as a "sound advance."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:I watched, for the first time in a long time, The Terminator 2 last night. But, my girlfriend asked me a question that I couldn't answer, and I thought I would relay it to the SA Forums, which I assume is a place containing many Terminator scholars. The events in Terminator 2 (and, indeed, Skynet itself) only happened because the T-800 tech wasn't fully destroyed at the end of the first film. They were attempting not to repeat this mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
, D, mmm I Nmjm
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
H (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Xenophon posted:hey get your hyper-pretentious analysis bullshit out of here buddy Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not a completely legitimate part of the discussion. (Always remember to put your phone to sleep when you stick it in your pocket, folks.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
What is it exactly that makes the digital Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy not 100% realistic, from a technical standpoint? I can read essays about the uncanny valley all day but I want to know about how current lighting systems aren't 100% realistic, or how compositing just isn't there, or that 10 more render passes and 3 more months and $50 million more would have accomplished _____? Stills just look so good, the modeling looks perfect, etc. Or is it just that the animation of things like the musculature/mouth/etc. just didn't work because of some certain factor? I want specifics, dammit!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:Honestly with everything wrong with Tron Legacy, digital Jeff Bridges not looking "right" isn't really a problem since he's not supposed to be real. Hes a computer recreation. He look like one. Okay. The problem is that every other thing that is a computer simulation doesn't look like him. Except that his flashback scenes which take place in the real world poke holes in this idea. efb
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
Woz My Neg rear end posted:My DVD player somehow ran the chapters in reverse order the first time I watched Memento. That was really confusing. You probably accidentally selected the special feature where it runs the movie in chronological order.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
I really didn't mind the lens flares in ST09. If they started popping up in every film I'd get annoyed, but it's a stylistic choice that works for me in this particular film in this particular setting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:I knew I would get this and I deserve it. Truth is hate Ghost Rider and most superhero movies. You know what is a good movie, The Godfather. That is a great story told in an interesting and entertaining way. When someone gets shot in the head I don't have to think about what the director is trying to represent by this. But I'm sure if right in the middle of The Godfather if there was a space scene that last about 10 minutes and then a dinosaur stepped on a another dinosaur and then RIPPED IT'S loving DAGO, GUINEA, WOP, GREASEBALL neck out, and I realized this signified Micheal's turning to the dark side of the family business it would have been much better. It's cool, Malick just isn't for you. I'd recommend paying closer attention to directorial history before you jump into your next heady-looking film. Though I'm not exactly sure what you expected based on the trailer, I feel it's pretty darn representative of the film.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:Tree of Life is an ink blot test. It sounds like you have a very narrow definition of what films are supposed to be, that being "entertainment." I'm not going to put you down for it, but do realize that people on this forum tend to have a much broader definition. Out of curiosity, how old you?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
ogopogo posted:The state university system/lovely professors to film students, "Gotcha, suckers!" If you can share any of those stories that'd be awesome. I love a good guerrilla filmmaking story.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:I've always favored the "Travis lives" ending, but that little bit with the mirror sticks with me and gives me doubt. It's a really curious detail to be emphasized right at the end of the film. What kills me about Taxi Driver is that I don't think either interpretation of the ending reflects positively on the film. It's a great film overall, but I haven't read one interpretation of the ending that felt fully thematically appropriate for the rest of the film. e: Though maybe the fact that everyone seems to have a different interpretation of it is thematically appropriate in itself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
Would anybody be interested in a thread on alternate script drafts? Or is that far too broad? I love going back and seeing how a film was shaped by reading different drafts. Recently did that with Joe vs. The Volcano and actually got a lot out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Do go on. He said he didn't realize that Joel Cohen and Joel Coen were two different writers, and signed on to Garfield based on the fact that it was being written by a Coen brother. It's a ridiculous story and was clearly meant as a joke, but because of this whole bizarre and stupid "Nobody will ever believe you" legend the internet has created around Murray lots of people took it seriously. e: wrong Cohen. Though Etan Cohen and Joel Cohen should totally team up to be the dark mirror version of the Coen brothers. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:In this sense an editor is absolutely able to change the feel and atmosphere of a scene and many directors have explicitly stated that filmmaking doesn't begin until the film is on the editing desk and, of course, the director is usually present to guide the editor's choices towards a desired effect and several full cuts of a film may be made before the director is satisfied (see, for example, Blade Runner, or Brazil's infamous "Love Conquers All" cut). Since editing is an art there's no clear definition of what "bad editing" entails because all the rules can be broken to great effect (see Breathless, which popularized the jump cut) and I can't think of any solid examples show you but obviously there are all sorts of movies with poor editing. I don't recall the details, but I remember reading in school about an experiment where a filmmaker took the same reaction shot of a man and placed it next to various shots of things he was reacting to. After showing a different version to different audiences, the same actor in the same shot was hailed for his his acting by the audience, but each time of a different emotion. Rage, heartbreak, and serenity can all be conveyed by the same shot depending on how it is used by the editor. That "chemistry" between actors that people are always on about? 90% of it was constructed in the editing room. Maxwell Lord posted:On top of this, over multiple takes an actor's readings and gestures can change, and an editor has to make sure that the takes chosen add up to a coherent performance. (I've heard that Christopher Walken never gives the same reading twice.) Otherwise an actor might be playing a scene really intense one moment and laid back the next without any explanation. This quality was used to great success in American Psycho. The director had Willem Dafoe shoot multiple versions of each take, some in which his character knew that Bateman had killed Allen, and some in which he didn't suspect at all. In editing, these were constantly switched between so that neither the audience nor Bateman could get a proper read on him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
So I guess this means I need to watch Diner? Is the movie as good as this clip implies?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Trilogy? Not as far as I've heard, but there has definitely been talk over the past couple of years about doing a Venom standalone film.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Has Ridley Scott ever explained why they cast Guy Pierce as Peter Weyland in Prometheus? Mostly I'm wondering why they just didn't hire an older actor for the part instead of having to put a younger guy through all that makeup. Yes, unequivocally, as stated above. Weyland originally had a lot of flashbacks in the shooting script. By the time they started filming, all those scenes had been cut or movified but Pierce had already been locked in. This made for him being in a very mediocre role. HOWEVER! I believe it worked out perfectly, because the entire time I was waiting for a scene when the engineers made him younger, because I knew it was a guy in makeup. When they all talk to the engineer for the first time and he kills the poo poo out of Weyland, my mind was legitimately blown, since I was just waiting for him to become Young Guy Pierce.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
In Gattaca, when Ethan Hawke's character (actual identity) comes up as a suspect, they say he has no living relatives. His parents are dead, yes, but we know the cop/brother is his living relative. Their last names should be the same, right? Why doesn't the detective know this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
How much less could you care? Though, it really does kill me every time someone says bi-op-ic, especially when its well respected film folks.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:A specific movie question about BTTF 3 I mean, it's not the in-universe explanation, but from what I read refined gasoline's chemical composition breaks down in such a way that after a certain amount of time it can no longer be processed by a combustion engine. The problem would be that because Doc had Marty come so long after he arrived that the gasoline would have already gone bad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:There was a great old shareware game for Mac called Sim Cinema. You game looks extremely similar. I'm telling you this for two reasons: Dammit, I've been planning a Sim Cinema ripoff for years. Maybe now I won't have to! xcore posted:Wow, that's pretty cool. I wonder how the show would work without the canned laughter. I distinctly remember watching episodes with no laugh track, but I thought it was a creative choice for the particular episode (like a "super serious special event" episode) and it dramatically altered the tone of the show. IIRC in the last, I believe, two seasons they cut the laugh track entirely as the creator had been fighting the entire time not to have a laugh track. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 06:13 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Also, a shitton of extraneous scenes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Deleted for a reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Mad Max is meant to be a sort of folklore whispered about amongst the survivors the societal collapse. More a memory or a legend than a person, hence the narration - so continuity doesn't fuckin' matter.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
In The Princess Bride, Wallace Shawn's character says "Inconceivable!" a lot. After he meets Mandy Patinkin's character and says it enough, Patinkin says "I do not think it means what you think it means". This is meant to be a funny comment, I take it. But Webster's says "Inconceivable" means "impossible to comprehend". It seems to me like Shawn's character is using his catchprase to say that an event in the film (such as the Dread Pirate Roberts being able to follow them on a boat) is so unlikely that it is beyond human comprehension to imagine it being true. To me, this seems like it is intentional on the part of Shawn's character - he's using comic exaggeration in a self-aware way, similarly to how people ironically use "literally" today to make a point. So when Patinkin's character says his line, is it just that the character is being petty with semantics and correcting his (intentionally comically exaggerated) usage? Or am I misreading this? This has been bothering me since I was 10.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Got it. So it would be like someone calling Rob Lowe's character on Parks & Rec on his "literally" use after hearing him say it about a bunch of stuff. I guess I always just figured that because he's using it the way he intends to that it does mean what he think it means, so the line always bothered me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Why would you ignore his direction on Happy Feet 1 and 2? He made Happy Feet 1 and 2 because he wanted to. He talked about making Happy Feet 1 and 2 when he had kids and was constantly watching kids movies. Now the kids are all grown up so he moved on.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Dragyn posted:Blazing Saddles apparently has a TV version that includes added scenes. With enough digging you could probably hunt this down http://ifdb.fanedit.org/blazing-saddles-extended-edition/
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Is there a particular reason, beyond stylistic trends, that opening credits sequences have gotten as rare as they are? And why especially do movies increasingly forego the "[Studio] Presents a [Production Company] Production" bit, which doesn't even take very long? Asking about a trend in film within the past 30 years? Bet on Star Wars. Wikipedia posted:Opening credits Presumably, having a $250,000 fine went away after the DGA realized they hosed up by forcing one of the biggest directors in the world to drop out of the guild. I think they just fell out of style after that. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 04:25 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Those random lectures in the middle of chapters was my favorite part as a kid. A rad book about dinosaurs eating people AND I get to learn about evolution and natural selection? Helll yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I mean, the important thing to take away from Angiers madness was that no matter who appeared where or was cloned or transported, he thought death was preferable to letting Borden "win". I mean, yes. But behind that it was really about the look on their faces. Madness isn't the right word for it, though. It's obsession, and he and Tesla laid it out pretty succintly: quote:Nikola Tesla: Mr. Angier, have you considered the cost of such a machine? feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:And The Dark Tower, and the Harry Potter play, and whatever this anime thing is Man, I'm looking through that dude's Tweets and they're all kind of amazing. "the Jews need to stop making underage girls look not underage" "never date a girl that owns a dildo" "Bully victims have no idea how good they have it. I wish somebody took time out of their day to interact with me." "sometimes i have night terrors and i wake up screaming and become a danger to myself and others" These are all within the past 5 hours. There are many, many more in that timeframe.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
MisterGBH posted:That Rocketeer news is baffling. His helmet and jacket are awesome in the film and it doesnt scream Iron Man to me. I can just imagine the showdown with the big bad now and the helmet gets knocked off revealing the lady Rocketeer. Bah. Why is it baffling? The original had a cool aesthetic, a cool story, and a cool world. It didn't have a cool lead or and it didn't have a lot to say. Casting a new lead and making her a black woman in the 1950s looks to be directly addressing those failings. It would be impossible for the filmmakers to not address the racial and gender implications of that, so the film will inherently be less fluffy than the original. Also, the story takes place 6 years after the first film, with Cliff Curtis having been missing for most of that time. It's not going to be some kind of reveal that there's a lady Rocketeer, it'll be her story from the beginning.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
I just wrote a big long YouTube comment (I know, I know) about a way of interpreting The Fountain that I prefer over the standard reading, and was curious if anyone else subscribes to that theory. My preferred interpretation is that, as a way grieving, the Tom finishes Izzies' book by creating the fictional astronaut version of Tom. I know that the popular (and in my opinion surface-level) interpretation of the film is that the astronaut's story is the true continued story of the present day version of Tom, and that only the conquistador's story is fictional - but to me it feels like the film is attempting to be more poetic and metaphorical than that. After Izzie's funeral, Tom finds himself in deep grief. As he grieves, he remembers the life that he and Izzie shared, lending to the nonlinear nature of the film. He begins to understand that her book was about their relationship ("My conquistador, always conquering"), about how she understood his need to protect her (the fictional Tomas's dedication and love), and that she not just forgave him for not being with her toward the end, but that she thinks it is noble and beautiful that he wants to try. At different points in the film, Tom both accepts and rejects Izzie's offer to go for a walk. The one where he stays and opens up Donovan represents what Tom actually did in the past, and the one where he rejects that part of himself and follows her outside represents what the grieving Tom now knows: he should have been with her toward he end, as Lillian was. So he plants a tree on her grave with a seed, and then begins to finish her book. The only way he knows how to finish the book is by filtering it through his own grief and inserting himself, Izzie, and their cancer journey into the story so that he can craft a fantasy: a future where that seed grows and becomes Izzy again, and he can fulfill her dream of them meeting together again in Xiabulba. He combines her writing, their lives together, and his fantasy into a single narrative - essentially, the text of the film as we viewed it is that narrative. She is the author of the conquistador portions of the book, he is the author of the present and science-fiction portions of the book, and they are combined together into a singular narrative that acts as closure for Tom. In his ending to the story, the character of Tom never gets over Izzie's death. He considers death a disease and becomes obsessed with it. That version of himself succeeds and lives for hundreds of years, eventually taking the tree that grew from Izzie's grave into space, destined for Xiabulba so that they could be together again in death. This is why the ring reappears out of nowhere for the astronaut directly before the supernova: it's Tom forgiving himself for losing the ring, giving himself the closure he could not get in life. In the scientific, logical world that is set up by this film, the ring could not suddenly appear in the brambles of a space ship hundreds of years after it was lost in a laboratory. That's because it's a fictional metaphor that present-day Tom has written. Astronaut Tom's plan wasn't to resurrect Izzie via visiting Xiabulba, it was simply a symbol of the real Tom accepting her dream of what the afterlife could be: the two them meeting again at Xiabulba to live forever, now filtered through his scientific mind. It would be far too coincidental that the actual tree of life his wife just happens to be writing a book about truly exists and that his laboratory just happened to get a sample of it from the rainforest. This is because it doesn't exist, and the lab doesn't have a sample of it. It's Tom imagining that the Guatemalan tree lab sample is the actual tree of life, building a literal connection between the real version of Tom and the fictional version that Izzy had written. This is why the astronaut appears in the temple as First Father - it's Tom's writing, finishing her conquistador's character arc through his own means, proving his acceptance of her death. Her version of Tom (Tomas) and his version of Tom (astronaut) then die the same way as both the real version of Izzie and Tom's fictionalized version of her (the tree). All die exactly as First Father did in the Mayan book that Izzie showed Tom in the museum: death as an act of creation. This is Tom understanding what Izzie was going through as she was dying, finally hearing what she was trying to tell him about her vision of the afterlife and why she wasn't afraid anymore. The film isn't simply about accepting your own death, the film is about not letting grief consume you. It's Tom understanding that death isn't something to be defeated, it's something to be accepted, it's beautiful, it's an act of creation. Is there anything in this that wouldn't make more sense than that popular interpretation? I know the film is intentionally open to interpretation, and in fact parts of this could be simultaneously true and untrue, but it just seems like most people simply subscribe to a surface-level reading that leaves out a lot of the film's complexity. I normally would just go "it's both, the film was meant to simultaneously be true for both interpretations" but Aronofsky insists that there's one correct interpretation in interviews and commentary. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Oct 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 03:56
|
|