|
FitFortDanga posted:I'm going to watch Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima soon, and I'm wondering if it matters which order I watch them in. My wife wants to see FOOF but not LFIJ, so I'd rather just watch LFIJ while waiting for her to have time for FOOF. Are there any specific characters or situations that "cross over" from FOOF that would affect how I perceive LFIJ? The most is a marine who sets off a flamethrower into a bunker. Letters is a far better film in terms of..well everything really, pacing, characters and so forth. Flags was a bit too hammy on the whole "Heroes are not what they're cracked up to be" and was really stretching this to an absurd point. Plus the narrative was too scattered to hold much interest.
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2008 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/ Has a fairly varied outcome, it also allows you to search the top ten for various groups like Cannes or Golden Globes. The downside is that they're limited to the last decade so older, classic movies may be loaded.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2010 12:57
|
|
|
Doctor No and From Russia With Love loosely follow.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 14:55
|
|
|
Boris the Blade posted:What's the process of converting 2D films into 3D? On a rough level it's akin to making cutouts of foreground and background things then having a computer calculate a space between them. The biggest problem you have is the fact that because it wasn't properly shot in 3D the slight difference between left and right will create holes that need to be filled in for the background and this is what makes the difference between a good 3D and a bad 3D transfer. 3D movies don't really have this problem as it's a fairly straightforward method to insert a second camera then tweak the focus. A bit more detail than I go into. http://www.slate.com/id/2243118/?from=rss
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 06:05
|
|
|
The Remote Viewer posted:I'm reading an introductory textbook on film and it happened to mention directors only get 2-3 minutes of usable footage per day. How can that be true, considering everyone works 12-18 hour days? (What's the book?) This shooting ratio is defined by the script. Each script is broken down into 8ths of a page, that is each inch of script is 1/8th and from that the whole structure of the movie's shoot is arranged. The order of a shoot isn't in sequential order, very few films do that (E.T was one of them) as doing so would drastically blow out the shoot days unless you were at a set or you had two camera units between locations to try and contain the time. The production scheduler (a general term) analyses everything such as location, length of estimated script time vs screen time, people's availability, day and night and places everything into a layout that will later be the call sheet. Here's an example.  As you can see each day only shoots so many pages, between 3 or 5 depending on what is happening. Now these don't tell about the coverage and this is where time is eaten up. One scene could have several shots to cover wide, medium, reverses and so on, just look at any conversation between two people in a movie and count the shots, there's likely at least 6 or so each shot requires X amount of time to setup to measure, to mark and so forth even if it's only "one" scene for the day. Y.M.M.V of course; to use David Letterman's joke quote:The scene "Amy opens the window" takes half a day and perhaps ten shots in a big studio production:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2010 02:23
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Roger Corman could get 45 minutes of footage in the final cut in one day, maybe for more than one film.... Corman pretty much worked like a maniac and threw all common convention to the winds. But he also rehearsed beforehand so when it came to shooting retakes weren't that common. Plus he often used multiple cameras or reused sets that cut down on production time as nothing needed to be built, just lit with an even spread and shot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
And this is what happens when an editor directs a film. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Oz (Walter Murch)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2010 01:37
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Saul Bass was a graphic designer who made some incredible and iconic movie posters: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1343063261314199679 Here's him discussing various title sequences he did. He also made an academy winning doco in 1968 "Why man creates" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nHOWkfGFsk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_cXXdEpeZg
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2010 14:59
|
|
|
thehandtruck posted:In Sherlock Holmes Sherlock clearly punches people in the face in slow motion. How do they accomplish this affect? It is a mask with ballistics gel and make up? I mean they can't just actually go around punching people as hard as they can in the face right? Shooting with a high speed camera, you'd be surprised how much the human face wobbles. http://vimeo.com/1675008
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:As my film genres professor put it, "Tarantino is like a film genres professor who actually makes movies." In some aspects I think he's a glimpse into movies of tomorrow. Films are slowly becoming less mysterious as it's now very feasible to get out there and make stuff by yourself. Tarentino's advantage is his huge knowledge of films and importantly understanding mostly WHY they work. He knows movie goers are far more knowledgeable than before and enhances a film's view-ability by sliding in subtle references where the nature of the film becomes attractive. He's a terrific writer but in some way hurts himself by having so many tight scenes that everything ends up standing separate from each other, it works fantastically in Pulp Fiction as the film's serialised style supports it, but for Inglorious Basterds it falls flat as the scenes are like inflating a balloon to bursting point it...then having to do it all over again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 07:45
|
|
|
kapalama posted:If you ever find anything for this I would love to hear about it. (I was asking about this before myself). http://www.youtube.com/user/stevejohnsonfx#p/u Steve Johnson worked on various effects from Ghostbusters to Fright Night and explains how they did it. Mostly puppetry. The Terminator and Aliens discs go into some of the practical effects present, the Blade Runner dvds also focuses on the challenges of practical effects. The closest to an all rounder was "Special Effects: Anything Can Happen" but that was an IMAX release and aside from some cam jobs hasn't been released on DVD. http://kipplezone.tripod.com/id59.html A pretty good retrospective on Douglas Trumbull who was a pioneer in 2001's effects and others.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 12:02
|
|
|
So Slusho is the destroyer of all worlds?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 08:38
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Starship Troopers: It's CGI from 1997, what else do you expect? The direct to video sequels aren't much better.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 13:06
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Is it worth watching the movie since it is free and all? It's on my top list of "mindless action films that are just fun to watch".
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 13:53
|
|
|
4000 Dollar Suit posted:Speaking of the Matrix, there is a part where Cypher calls Tank and Tank seems confused, and Cypher says something like "goddamn car accident, somebody up there still likes me" as many times as I've seen this I still have no gently caress clue what this scene means. What the poo poo does a car accident have to do with anything going on. Going back on memory, seeing Cypher betrayed the team I was under the impression it's something to do with that, agents doing some sort of blockade to stop the team getting out safely.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 05:57
|
|
|
quote:If the camera looks directly over the actor’s shoulder then it will indeed be in its own shot. Its line of view has to be at a slightly greater angle to the mirror. Imagine the set in plan view, draw a straight line from the actor’s nose to the mirror and another from the camera’s lens to the same point on the mirror, keeping symmetry. The actor, looking down his line, sees the camera reflected in the mirror. The camera, looking down its line, sees the actor’s reflection.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2010 11:14
|
|
|
The Machine posted:I'm wondering how camera technique would change if you draped a Harry Potter invisi-cloak over every cameraman. The sound and lighting crew would be pissed they don't have to make sure not to get in the way of the now invisible camera :p
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2010 00:10
|
|
|
On NASA missions with the moon buggy they even went as far as to remove bandages from the first aid kit to compensate for the extra weight.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 14:02
|
|
|
For obvious safety reasons all cigarettes, alcohol, drugs etc etc are faked on set. For stuff involving people smoking it's usually something like honey tobacco or some other herbal stuff. Stuff like scotch, whiskey and so on is a mix of tea mixed with something like coke to darken it a bit. Wine can easily be faked with various juices, sparkling juice works for champagne. Or non alcoholic wine, but that stuff gets a bit nauseating if you have to drink lots. Non smoking actors can use herbal cigarettes or simply never actually smoke, just move the cigarette to their mouth and hide with a reversal shot. But if anyone showed up on set under the influence they're usually politely asked to chill in the hotel, it's a great deal safer than having constant retakes due to technical errors and having production stop due to OHSS investigations is really not worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 16:22
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:And old newspaper would have copyrighted photos/text if you get close enough and they could get sued. You basically just buy a prop newspaper from the prophouse and it has it all jumbled up to where you want various poo poo to be. The advent of HD has forced art departments to start putting effort into the props as you no longer can't get away with text being too small or indistinct for the camera to pick up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 02:00
|
|
|
Jacques Diarrhida posted:Do cars in movies have fake license plates? Or are they just real cars with actual plates and they were rented by the studio? Or in lazy productions set in the past where older cars have modern plates. A great example was recently in Underbelly where modern Queensland number plates were sitting next to Victorian plates in 1990.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2010 11:54
|
|
|
The Good German - Steven Soderbergh Was an attempt in 2006 to make a modern film in the same style as one from 1945 but with the addition of not being restricted by the ratings of the day (swearing and nudity). That meant 1.66:1 ratio, dramatic staging and blocking, and the use of deep focus lenses and other dated recording techniques to mimic the same conditions. The movie was a flop and was criticised for being too reliant on style as opposed to getting good characters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2010 08:35
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Is it possible to just take an old film camera and shoot footage that would look like that Guy Maddin film, not counting the wear of course. Nope. The biggest technical issue is that modern film doesn't fit old cameras and old lenses don't fit modern ones. Other issues is that film framerates were variable, caused by hand cranking and so forth. Early film framerates were around 18 fps as opposed to 24fps. Plus modern lenses capture light far better, which is why there's less blowout and flares. "There Will be Blood" used a Pathe camera from 1910 for very short scenes, as the camera wasn't steady with it's color and has a low resolution. But (as shown by Dr. Plonk) it is possible to adapt a hand-crank method to a modern camera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVkgZSo2MPA&feature=related
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2010 09:10
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:This is a page back, but I never realized this. In fact, I still don't know what shots could have possibly used this camera. I do remember that the first shot of "Magnolia" is shot with a hand-crank camera but I can't recall any shots in TWBB looking like that. They were very short flashback scenes on a train, Plainview with his son as a baby.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Night scenes shot on a sound stage however, tend to look fine, and I can't figure out why there's such a huge difference. A stage is completely controlled, if you turn of all the lights it's pitch black, there's nothing casting any light so it's very easy to make something appear it's at night. Outdoors you have the sun to contend with. In short the sun gives a far greater wash of light and is harsh, in comparison the moon is not much more than a giant reflector, more diffused and softer. Day for night is done for time and logistics constraints. For example, you are filming at a historical monument and you can only negotiate three hours to shoot two scenes at the same place. It is quicker to change costumes and swap over filters and stock that match a night look than to arrange two sessions that add to the shooting schedule. Nowadays with greater post production image control we're able to fine tune things to give a far more convincing effect than having to use tungsten stock and underexposing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 06:48
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:I asked this about a week ago in the Deleted Scenes thread and I was wondering if perhaps anyone in here knew the answer since we drew a blank. The "14 minute low altitude helicopter chase" does crop up in the news for early production gossip. The idea seemed to be they would shut down Sydney's CBD district for two days to film this. However what Joe Silver was referring to was the helicopter was being used for shots for the freeway scene. The press misquoted him and somehow mixed up descriptions of the burley brawl and freeeway chase sequence and assumed it was all for one grand effects sequence. quote:"Somehow, somewhere, something came out about a helicopter chase. I have no idea what they're talking about. There is no such thing. The Brothers shot plates with helicopters, but there's no helicopter sequence, per se."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2010 23:13
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Once the Emperor dies, who the hell can Vader train as an Apprentice? The same could be said for Yoda, who'd likely crack a hip if he'd dare flip out like he used to.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2010 01:29
|
|
|
Kiera Knightly also got touched up in King Arthur and then later made it known that she'd declined to have alterations done for The Duchess.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 10:49
|
|
|
Adding to the Godfather part 3 discussion. At that point Copolla was in dire straights from previous films not making money back so in order to get a surefire hit he picked up Paramount's long standing agreement to make a third Godfather. The rushed script development time (six weeks as opposed to Copolla wanting six months) and loosing Robert Duvall and Winnona Ryder all contriubuted to a film that really feels like everyone was just doing it out of obligation. Copolla felt the story had been told and tied up by Godfather part 2, he agrees there's no where else for Michael to go.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2010 01:37
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:I always wondered something about silent era films. Was it impossible back then to do modern-style subtitles instead of title cards? It still bugs me to have the visuals chopped up and segmented by screens of text every few seconds. Aside from doing a double exposure, which would have required some complex setting up the other option is to burn in subtitles by etching them into the film which is very painful to watch as either the words shake as the film snakes through the gates and the fact the text can drop out of focus complete with rings around the letters.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
kapalama posted:I loved Donnie Darko in the original version, and I hated the director's cut. It's a direct to DVD release. It basically can be summed up as "What if a Darko Fan made a sequel" without understanding anything about what worked in the first film and blatantly copies camera styling and drops random references of the past film with no real reason into a plot that isn't much more than "Small Utah townsfolk go crazy."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
kapalama posted:When did the "Shaky Camera= Real" idea appear and why won't it go away? Probably since it's association with WW2 newsreels. What makes it "real" is that you're in with the action and have no time to setup a tripod. Or the other factor is because you cannot see everything clearly it creates tension as you try and focus on something, combine that with fast cuts and your brain is left bewildered to what's happened. Put that in context with something like a fast murder and it creates a sense of shock. The idea with Batman and Bourne is you're supposed to be getting an idea of how nasty is it to be assaulted by them, if you can't see it coming I'm sure the guy on the receiving end can't as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2011 08:30
|
|
|
Synnr posted:While I have several books and docs about film writing/directing/producing, I was curious about sound artists? The Jurassic Park thread reminded me of how much I love it when the sounds just click. Do they just get ignored for not being glamorous? I haven't seen much in a bit of searching beyond some basic sound engineering stuff. The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Film Editing delves into Murch's experiences as a sound designer and editor at various points in his career.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:It's actually kind of strange. I much prefer The Next Generation TV show to The Original Series but gently caress me TOS movies are, far, far better than the TNG ones. The TNG films suffer from having seven main crew who really don't have much to do but get swapped around depending on what the situation calls for. Data seems the most developed as he actually has a character arc with his emotion chip. The characters get worse once you watch DS9 and realise just how much Worf gets reduced to exposition along with the rest of the crew. It's also amusing to note the prime directive being hastily written away to free up any plot corners, such as in Insurrection where it transpires the primitive planet actually has warp technology, they just don't use it any more. First Contact is generally the best of the TNG films, plot niggles aside, it's the most accessible as it's sci-fi action. Generations is a confused mess, Insurrection wasn't developed well and Nemesis was an expensive B-movie. The Final Frontier also can be viewed as thumbing it's nose at the very rigid PC-ness of TNG; such as the ship not working, the crew actually interacting on a level that's friendly not formal. The TOS crew tend to work better as a team rather than being locked down to individual roles waiting for their point in the story (see also DS9) by comparison the TNG crew are bland. I give it a sympathy vote over the fact it had a pretty rocky production.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
Secks posted:There are some interesting ones in there that I never knew about like:
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 04:04
|
|
|
dreadnought posted:Winona Ryder, Robert Downey Jr., and Woody Harrelson were publicly convicted of crimes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2011 07:48
|
|
|
Role Play McMurphy posted:There's a direct correlation between how many lines are done with ADR and how good the movie is. So they loop it in their living room as it's playing on a computer so the new dialogue now has additional humms from computer fans and air conditioning as well as getting muddied by the reflections off the wall. Then to fill in the gaps the foley artist has to create replacement noises. The rule is, you can have the worst picture quality in the world, but if your sound is jarring no one will watch it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
Barometer posted:This gives new meaning to the term "Panty shot". What other crazy poo poo do people get up to with lenses? Aside from the obvious "smear Vaseline" trick? Or to touch briefly on lens effects; long lenses will flatten the sense of perspective, cleverly used in Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood".  To reduce the risk of shooting the actor with real arrows a long lens was used to make everything appear closer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
Other things that are done in nude scenes is having the talent wear flesh coloured briefs or boob tubes that provide some modesty. Or even getting things like latex pads to place over nipples. Also these scenes are usually shot on a closed set to limit things like candid photography.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2011 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Serenity
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2011 06:44
|
|