Major motion Picture Question

Post by **bouncybabybucket** » Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:45 pm

Do anyone else here go to the cinema now and constantly pick faults with editing, focus, lighting etc?!
I wanna just enjoy the movies again!
That being the case, did anyone else think Lost In Translation was criminally under-lit?

Post by **Commodore** » Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:12 pm

I've been doing that all my life.

Post by **Split8mm** » Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:31 pm

bouncybabybucket wrote:Do anyone else here go to the cinema now and constantly pick faults with editing, focus, lighting etc?!
I wanna just enjoy the movies again!
That being the case, did anyone else think Lost In Translation was criminally under-lit?

For me, it's not so much lighting that bothers me since I can't light scenes very well myself. But a hair flopping around or a lot of dust or a big scratch bothers me. At home, I'd at least stop the projector and blow the hair or dust out of there!

Post by **camera_wizard** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:31 am

I'll admit it. Twice I've noticed faults. One time, it was a constant, thin line down the side of the sceen. The other time, the first few seconds of a movie were so out of frame that the top half of the picture was on the bottom, and the bottom half of the picture was on the top. It was soon put into frame.

Post by **S8 Booster** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:36 am

I saw a real *cheap* Norwegian production (Low budget children stuff) the other day and it was good in the sence that it was possible to watch some of the splices (could the the reel-reel stuff) and some defects in some edit points. Made me feel good - somwheat in family with reel projected s8. That is what I call "reel" film. Not those slick ... you know

R

Post by **zetetick** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:56 am

I haven't seen Lost in Translation, but I have seen a few films in the theater recently and been brought up short by how unacceptably bad the image looked for my $9. I blame the sharpness and stability of DVD, not my own experiences in filmmaking. The Tom Cruise sci-fi action film Minority Report, for instance, looked unacceptably grainy and murky to me. I found myself squinting at the screen.

A prediction I keep annoying my friends with is that, as home display systems get better & better (and they of course will) and DV cameras get higher in resolution and become more "film-like" (already happening) theatrical films will have to retreat into larger formats (70mm, IMAX) in order to justify the cost of seeing them. Who wants to pay $8-$15 to see a film in the theater when you can purchase the film on DVD for the same price? I personally would rather see films at home, as then I don't have to put up with jackasses sitting in front of, behind, and to the left and right of me -- as was the case recently when I went to see Underworld at the local mall.

None of these revolutions will touch super-8, of course, since the percieved "weaknesses" of small-format film are actually its strengths. It may actually come about that one day 16mm and 35mm are gone (destroyed by DV) and all that's left is super-8 and digital video in various flavors.

Post by **Actor** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:55 am

zetetick wrote:Who wants to pay $8-$15 to see a film in the theater when you can purchase the film on DVD for the same price?

A lot of people. In fact most of the teeney-bopper, twenty something audiences that movies are aimed at today. To them what's on the screen, including the content and the quality of the picture, is secondary to the social aspect. It's a way to get out of the house, away from the parents, the kids, the siblings. A place to take your date.

Movies are cheaper and more constant than athletic events, plays, concerts. And movie theaters are the first venue of new movies. "It's not out on video yet," is a real seller.

Post by **Commodore** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:56 am

well that and the big screen

Post by **Actor** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:06 am

bouncybabybucket wrote:Do anyone else here go to the cinema now and constantly pick faults with editing, focus, lighting etc?!

It's not that I "pick faults" so much as I say to myself "I wonder how they did that," or just as bad, "I know how they did that." And I pick up on homages to other movies. There's a scene in Full Metal Jacket that I immediately recognized as being lifted out of Kubrick's earlier film Dr. Strangelove.

It's a reflex with me now. I can't help it. I don't know whether it lessens or increases my enjoyment of the film.

Post by **Scotness** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:01 am

Mate you need this site

http://moviemistakes.com/

Very perceptive quote too:

zetetick wrote: the percieved "weaknesses" of small-format film are actually its strengths.

Scot

Post by **Smurf** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:24 am

I actually like werid things with films, but it bothers me when a movie takes place in the 60's and has a 70's vw or something like that. It ticks me off. I kinda like the "3 stooges" type splicing it doesn't bother me.
my 2 cents
-Jim

Post by **soundboy** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:38 am

My pet hates being a Post sound guy are boom in the set and ADR sync.

Post by **soundboy** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:46 am

I've mixed sound on 100's of TV show's in the past few years but I try an avoid watching them got to air, why? Because I'm my own worst critic, and always pick at things I could have done better or differently.

Filmshooting

Major motion Picture Question

Major motion Picture Question

Re: Major motion Picture Question

Re: Major motion Picture Question