|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 26, 2017 7:18:37 GMT
This would be in general discussion watercooler, but, I have been "On set" again, delivering set parts, and this is from a discussion I had with one of the film crew. They firmly believe that one shot of a camera, one shot of a mike boom, one possible wrong reflection in a phake shop window, and the whole thing has to start again, because it spoils the shot. As to why it spoils the shot, I suppose maybe in a thing like a soap opera, you aint supposed to know it aint real life... but are we all that dim, or do some people really believe its all a real life documentary?. So there are some myths behind why its such "Bad luck" to have a camera crew or any part of them in shot... Why?. There is no logical reason. This is therefore a Modern Myth. Its from the TeeVee... and that isnt 100 yrs old yet. Does seeing the crew at work, the ones behind the camera, spoil the show?. I say Busted from the start as I can find no earthly reason to hide the film crew... we all know they are there, so why do they hide?.. Is it just because they are terminally out of fashion the way they dress?..  I would say its a Holly-wouldn't myth, but its not just hollywood, its everywhere there is a film crew... Are they just terminally shy, or, is there some good reason, you know, an actual sensible one, why they tend to keep them all out of shot as much as possible?. For me, seeing the film crew, is interesting, to see how they are working. "The making of" shows where they show how the show is shot [checking that back again for syntax?..], they intrigue me more than the regular show sometimes. For Example, During the shooting of MB's, we have been educated in how camera's work many times, and the problems of filming something, such as the problems of catching a spinning bullet on film... And the slow-mo camera's... So I am asking, is there a damn good reason why they cant show the film crew?. AND, If not, "Tidy them up a bit" and let them be shown working in the background on the new series... who knows, it may "start something"?... |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 26, 2017 12:23:05 GMT
Depends on the subject matter of the film. If it's something like a documentary, seeing the crew or a piece of equipment wouldn't bother me. But if I'm watching what is supposed to be a real life situation in a movie, I would say that seeing the crew or a mic boom or camera or whatever would spoil the scene.
How would you feel if you were watching an ancient Rome gladiators scene, and there was an aircraft flying by in the background? Look at the ridiculous up roar an armadillo is causing in the wonder woman movie thread, and that was meant to be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 26, 2017 14:56:34 GMT
This would be in general discussion watercooler, but, I have been "On set" again, delivering set parts, and this is from a discussion I had with one of the film crew. They firmly believe that one shot of a camera, one shot of a mike boom, one possible wrong reflection in a phake shop window, and the whole thing has to start again, because it spoils the shot. As to why it spoils the shot, I suppose maybe in a thing like a soap opera, you aint supposed to know it aint real life... but are we all that dim, or do some people really believe its all a real life documentary?. So there are some myths behind why its such "Bad luck" to have a camera crew or any part of them in shot... Why?. There is no logical reason. This is therefore a Modern Myth. Its from the TeeVee... and that isnt 100 yrs old yet. Does seeing the crew at work, the ones behind the camera, spoil the show?. I say Busted from the start as I can find no earthly reason to hide the film crew... we all know they are there, so why do they hide?.. Is it just because they are terminally out of fashion the way they dress?.. I would say its a Holly-wouldn't myth, but its not just hollywood, its everywhere there is a film crew... Are they just terminally shy, or, is there some good reason, you know, an actual sensible one, why they tend to keep them all out of shot as much as possible?. For me, seeing the film crew, is interesting, to see how they are working. "The making of" shows where they show how the show is shot [checking that back again for syntax?..], they intrigue me more than the regular show sometimes. For Example, During the shooting of MB's, we have been educated in how camera's work many times, and the problems of filming something, such as the problems of catching a spinning bullet on film... And the slow-mo camera's... So I am asking, is there a damn good reason why they cant show the film crew?. AND, If not, "Tidy them up a bit" and let them be shown working in the background on the new series... who knows, it may "start something"?... if there is a reason for there to be a film crew there, it is no problem at all. but otherwise, it immediately points out that this is a fake scene - and the rule in movies and theatre is "willing suspension of disbelief" if you are watching a making-of show, then are you there to see the cameras and crew. if you are watching the movie itself, you will get distracted watching the cameras and crew and have trouble believing the story is happening. addendum: there is a "fourth wall" convention wherein, some shows are allowed to break the fourth wall - like Deadpool - but most shows are not supposed to show awareness of the audience being there - and having visible production equipment breaks the fourth wall. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 26, 2017 18:46:29 GMT
I tanked "Children of Men" when I went to do a "retro" review of the film. Complete 0 / 10 score.
Why?
One of the big reasons was how badly they handled the cinematography in the climax of the film.
The scene called for the camera to be right behind the two leads as they escaped a raging battle. It wasn't supposed to be a character in itself. It was just supposed to be there, like in so many other movies.
Then a blood packet exploded.
It was supposed to represent someone next to the characters getting killed. But some of the fake blood splattered on the camera lens itself. If the camera was representing the first-person perspective of another character, then this could be justified by saying that the character had blood splatter on their face. But the camera was just a camera, so we spent much of the climax with the shot partially obscured by fake blood.
Could they not have reset things?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 27, 2017 10:01:39 GMT
Depends on the subject matter of the film. If it's something like a documentary, seeing the crew or a piece of equipment wouldn't bother me. But if I'm watching what is supposed to be a real life situation in a movie, I would say that seeing the crew or a mic boom or camera or whatever would spoil the scene. How would you feel if you were watching an ancient Rome gladiators scene, and there was an aircraft flying by in the background? Look at the ridiculous up roar an armadillo is causing in the wonder woman movie thread, and that was meant to be there. Spot the Styrofoam cup in "Men in Tights"...?.. I have seen most of the "Bloopers" that have been noticed in films of "Another era", including the Landrover TD90 passing on a distant hill in a 18th century drama, the contrails of a passing jet in something else from before flight, a watch that wasnt invented for 30 yrs in something else, and shoes "Yet to be invented" .... Its something I enjoy catching... it creates some conversation in some of the boring passages of some films. It bothers me not, as I am fully aware that being the audience on a 40-something inch OLED screen over Cable Broadband, that documentary could not have been filmed in the 18th century as they didnt even invent photography yet?. The recent documentary on Elizabeth the 1st that had frequent breaks in the action for modern day explanation of what exactly was going on at the time, modern day people in modern dress speaking right at the camera smashing the 4th wall, I found highly informative, and actually enjoyed it more than the Versailles documentary when they only did that for a 5min "extra" at the end of the main programme. Can they make programs that do the same sort of documentary feel of real life action but bring out "We are filming this" and interview the main actors "On the fly" and let it be seen that there is a crew filming this, will that spoil the film, or, are we inventing a new form of show here, where it may be period correct reconstruction but filmed in the real world. Reconstruction... There is an argument that pops up now and again on "period" reconstructions. This starts when a battle axe is broken before a battle reconstruction ids done. It can be repaired.. It would take maybe half a day to warm up a forge to start the repair to make it "Period correct" OR.. Give it here, I can take it to the back of the transit van in the car park and I have a TIG welder that can make a good repair in 20 min?.. Or the argument I am currently having with a [twit] who sees it as bad form that a car I know the owner of of classic heritage that was built before seatbelts, he has attached a set of "Clip on" belts to the sub-frame as a safety issue... I cant see why anyone has any reason to dismiss a safety issue because "The car wasnt built that way" The car has been hired out for period dramas to the film industry, and those belts can be removed and stored in the boot out of sight "as needed", why should anyone have an issue with that?. His MAJOR issue is that there has been a conversion "Inside the wheels", unseen by looking at it, that the awful drum brakes as fitted as standard have been replaced by much safer Disk brakes all round. You CANNOT tell unless you take the wheels off... But that is a problem for this "Purist"... I ask, as a vehicle that is in the background, is period correct to the eye, does it really matter?... Especially when in one scene it was passing a reconstructed row of houses that were no more that a shop façade hiding the truth that they were plaster and wood props instead of the stone and brick they represented?.. When all this is going on, does it really matter that you "Know" there is a film crew filming all of this?.. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 27, 2017 11:28:55 GMT
Yes, I "know" that the scene is being filmed on a piece of equipment that wouldn't exist in that time period, but unless the director specifically wanted it to be seen, anything else is sloppy production and unprofessional.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 27, 2017 14:09:31 GMT
Depends on the subject matter of the film. If it's something like a documentary, seeing the crew or a piece of equipment wouldn't bother me. But if I'm watching what is supposed to be a real life situation in a movie, I would say that seeing the crew or a mic boom or camera or whatever would spoil the scene. How would you feel if you were watching an ancient Rome gladiators scene, and there was an aircraft flying by in the background? Look at the ridiculous up roar an armadillo is causing in the wonder woman movie thread, and that was meant to be there. Spot the Styrofoam cup in "Men in Tights"...?.. I have seen most of the "Bloopers" that have been noticed in films of "Another era", including the Landrover TD90 passing on a distant hill in a 18th century drama, the contrails of a passing jet in something else from before flight, a watch that wasnt invented for 30 yrs in something else, and shoes "Yet to be invented" .... Its something I enjoy catching... it creates some conversation in some of the boring passages of some films. It bothers me not, as I am fully aware that being the audience on a 40-something inch OLED screen over Cable Broadband, that documentary could not have been filmed in the 18th century as they didnt even invent photography yet?. The recent documentary on Elizabeth the 1st that had frequent breaks in the action for modern day explanation of what exactly was going on at the time, modern day people in modern dress speaking right at the camera smashing the 4th wall, I found highly informative, and actually enjoyed it more than the Versailles documentary when they only did that for a 5min "extra" at the end of the main programme. Can they make programs that do the same sort of documentary feel of real life action but bring out "We are filming this" and interview the main actors "On the fly" and let it be seen that there is a crew filming this, will that spoil the film, or, are we inventing a new form of show here, where it may be period correct reconstruction but filmed in the real world. Reconstruction... There is an argument that pops up now and again on "period" reconstructions. This starts when a battle axe is broken before a battle reconstruction ids done. It can be repaired.. It would take maybe half a day to warm up a forge to start the repair to make it "Period correct" OR.. Give it here, I can take it to the back of the transit van in the car park and I have a TIG welder that can make a good repair in 20 min?.. Or the argument I am currently having with a [twit] who sees it as bad form that a car I know the owner of of classic heritage that was built before seatbelts, he has attached a set of "Clip on" belts to the sub-frame as a safety issue... I cant see why anyone has any reason to dismiss a safety issue because "The car wasnt built that way" The car has been hired out for period dramas to the film industry, and those belts can be removed and stored in the boot out of sight "as needed", why should anyone have an issue with that?. His MAJOR issue is that there has been a conversion "Inside the wheels", unseen by looking at it, that the awful drum brakes as fitted as standard have been replaced by much safer Disk brakes all round. You CANNOT tell unless you take the wheels off... But that is a problem for this "Purist"... I ask, as a vehicle that is in the background, is period correct to the eye, does it really matter?... Especially when in one scene it was passing a reconstructed row of houses that were no more that a shop façade hiding the truth that they were plaster and wood props instead of the stone and brick they represented?.. When all this is going on, does it really matter that you "Know" there is a film crew filming all of this?.. perhaps the best way to illustrate this would be in the movie, "war horse" in which they BUILT a fully functional scree ready replica of a Mark I tank to film a battle scene. would it have spoiled the action of the battle to instead have a real antique tank placed as a set piece, and have a talking head appear below the action and explain that the Mark I tanks that survive are in such delicate condition they are not actually driveable? Instead I saw a documentary on tanks which told, separately from the movie that the tank had been built for the movie and then donated to a tank museum, which thrilled the museum curators to no end, because now they had a fully genuine tank that could sit on display, because every time they tried to drive it, it broke; AND they had a brand new lookalike that they could take out and drive in their active displays, so people could see how it performed (or didn't, as often as not) on actual terrain, without worrying about breaking a valuable piece of history. it all comes down to what rules you choose to follow in staging your show. I've staged shows where the stagehands were fully visible to the audience, and the convention was that anybody dressed all in black was to be ignored; and I've staged shows where the stagehands were not to be seen at any costs. if you have set the rules of your show that the audience is seeing the action directly, then having a camera or a piece of equipment get seen is a violation of your rules of presentation. kind of like if you are showing your car as a factory original antique, any modification with modern parts is a violation of the rules of presentation, but if you are keeping your car to have fun driving it, then you may find it allowable to make improvements in the performance. my parade engine has a new modern paint job. my dad's parade engine has the original paint. for mine, taking it to a paint booth and retouching something is just fine, for my dad's, it would spoil all the effort they put into keeping the paint original. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 28, 2017 4:40:44 GMT
This is the standard of play in Far Eastern, Japan and China, standard stage acts, anyone in all black is to be ignored, and they manage to do that quite happily.
"Some may say" this is part of that ol' Ninja thing, in that from an early age they are taught to ignore people in all black, so it sits in their subconsciousness, and ignore Ninja dressed all black "On the street" as well...
Some other say that it takes training to be unseen, and sometimes a cigar is JUST a cigar..
But anyway, this is almost exactly but not quite what I am getting at.
At the moment, seeing the crew "Is new", and therefore, an interruption..
If we were to get used to seeing the crew, would we start to ignore them again?.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 28, 2017 5:16:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jul 10, 2017 23:12:50 GMT
It depends on the situation. If you are in the middle of a scene, the idea is that you are supposed to be able to see yourself in the scene, in the middle of the story. If that is the case, the seeing equipment or even wires and other effects can detract from your immersion. Of course, there are plenty of ways to soil that immersion that does not involve equipment making it into the frame. Bad dialog, bad science, bad acting, poor continuity, poor story telling, unrealistic situations, breaking the 4th wall, etc. There are tons of ways to do it.
Of course, that doesn't mean that these things will ruin the immersion factor. Sometimes filmmakers can do those sorts of things intentionally to further the movie, more so in comedies. Compare "Blazing Saddles" to "Plan 9 from Outer Space." They both have loads of errors. One ravels in the mistakes, the other is just cringe worthy.
It is interesting, back in the 90's it was the trend that many sitcoms would pull back the camera at the end of the show to include the crew and even the audience (if they had one) at the end of the program while they ran the closing credits.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 11, 2017 0:15:07 GMT
It depends on the situation. If you are in the middle of a scene, the idea is that you are supposed to be able to see yourself in the scene, in the middle of the story. If that is the case, the seeing equipment or even wires and other effects can detract from your immersion. Of course, there are plenty of ways to soil that immersion that does not involve equipment making it into the frame. Bad dialog, bad science, bad acting, poor continuity, poor story telling, unrealistic situations, breaking the 4th wall, etc. There are tons of ways to do it. Of course, that doesn't mean that these things will ruin the immersion factor. Sometimes filmmakers can do those sorts of things intentionally to further the movie, more so in comedies. Compare "Blazing Saddles" to "Plan 9 from Outer Space." They both have loads of errors. One ravels in the mistakes, the other is just cringe worthy. It is interesting, back in the 90's it was the trend that many sitcoms would pull back the camera at the end of the show to include the crew and even the audience (if they had one) at the end of the program while they ran the closing credits. to make people think it was funny enough for people to want to see it live. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 11, 2017 6:55:39 GMT
For the sake of discussion...
The show we are all here to discuss anyway, MB's, and the future of it.
We have had several instances of the crew being part of the main program.
Did it spoil anything at all seeing them in action?.
This is a scientific program, for me, watching the Host say "We need to look at this under a microscope" and seeing the crew home in on the subject about to have its own close-up, and watching how they get that close up, for me, its another depth of the program, because I am a camera "geek" in a way, and am enjoying the proliferation of smaller lighter "DSLR" camera's such as the Canon "7[x]" series, the 70D was considered the best for High Quality broadcast standard video, its incredibly small and light yet shoots amazingly good video.
Whats next?.
I know we get to see a LOT of "Slo-mo", so including the camera that does that in the program, this is good?..
I am wondering of the discussion on "Special effects" can be widened to show us the tools of the trade...
Its not as if its tricks of the trade any more, we all know how, so show us how much is being developed by doing such science, perhaps this will aid the development of better tools?.
Better Tools equals Better Science.
I have no doubt that the new camera's that can now shoot basic "Slow mo" have come from shows like this, to be able to increase the frame rate, so "we can all get slow mo these days"....
Yes its rather new to the scene, but its still there, and MB's are partially responsible.
MB's are partially responsible for my own fascination with pressure waves... I see a beauty in them when caught on camera?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 11, 2017 13:58:25 GMT
For the sake of discussion... The show we are all here to discuss anyway, MB's, and the future of it. We have had several instances of the crew being part of the main program. Did it spoil anything at all seeing them in action?. This is a scientific program, for me, watching the Host say "We need to look at this under a microscope" and seeing the crew home in on the subject about to have its own close-up, and watching how they get that close up, for me, its another depth of the program, because I am a camera "geek" in a way, and am enjoying the proliferation of smaller lighter "DSLR" camera's such as the Canon "7[x]" series, the 70D was considered the best for High Quality broadcast standard video, its incredibly small and light yet shoots amazingly good video. Whats next?. I know we get to see a LOT of "Slo-mo", so including the camera that does that in the program, this is good?.. I am wondering of the discussion on "Special effects" can be widened to show us the tools of the trade... Its not as if its tricks of the trade any more, we all know how, so show us how much is being developed by doing such science, perhaps this will aid the development of better tools?. Better Tools equals Better Science. I have no doubt that the new camera's that can now shoot basic "Slow mo" have come from shows like this, to be able to increase the frame rate, so "we can all get slow mo these days".... Yes its rather new to the scene, but its still there, and MB's are partially responsible. MB's are partially responsible for my own fascination with pressure waves... I see a beauty in them when caught on camera?... however, in those cases, the crew are part of the program. which is the point. if you was watching Top Gear and you saw a camera car pacing the test car so Clarkson could pontificate at it, would it distract you from the show? now if you was watching Gone With Downton Abbey at Casablanca and saw a guy with a modern camera rig running in circles around the star while he danced so you could see him pontificating at then ingenue, would it distract from the show? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 12, 2017 6:18:28 GMT
For the sake of discussion... The show we are all here to discuss anyway, MB's, and the future of it. We have had several instances of the crew being part of the main program. Did it spoil anything at all seeing them in action?. This is a scientific program, for me, watching the Host say "We need to look at this under a microscope" and seeing the crew home in on the subject about to have its own close-up, and watching how they get that close up, for me, its another depth of the program, because I am a camera "geek" in a way, and am enjoying the proliferation of smaller lighter "DSLR" camera's such as the Canon "7[x]" series, the 70D was considered the best for High Quality broadcast standard video, its incredibly small and light yet shoots amazingly good video. Whats next?. I know we get to see a LOT of "Slo-mo", so including the camera that does that in the program, this is good?.. I am wondering of the discussion on "Special effects" can be widened to show us the tools of the trade... Its not as if its tricks of the trade any more, we all know how, so show us how much is being developed by doing such science, perhaps this will aid the development of better tools?. Better Tools equals Better Science. I have no doubt that the new camera's that can now shoot basic "Slow mo" have come from shows like this, to be able to increase the frame rate, so "we can all get slow mo these days".... Yes its rather new to the scene, but its still there, and MB's are partially responsible. MB's are partially responsible for my own fascination with pressure waves... I see a beauty in them when caught on camera?... however, in those cases, the crew are part of the program. which is the point. if you was watching Top Gear and you saw a camera car pacing the test car so Clarkson could pontificate at it, would it distract you from the show? now if you was watching Gone With Downton Abbey at Casablanca and saw a guy with a modern camera rig running in circles around the star while he danced so you could see him pontificating at then ingenue, would it distract from the show? Top gear, if you check reflections, you see the camera car. It has been seen numerous times, they are not that sensitive about it now, its part of the show. As for the other show you refer to, if they did indeed include the camera, it would be a lot better than trying to watch what would otherwise be a very boring program... bring it on, at least its "something" to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 12, 2017 14:06:22 GMT
however, in those cases, the crew are part of the program. which is the point. if you was watching Top Gear and you saw a camera car pacing the test car so Clarkson could pontificate at it, would it distract you from the show? now if you was watching Gone With Downton Abbey at Casablanca and saw a guy with a modern camera rig running in circles around the star while he danced so you could see him pontificating at then ingenue, would it distract from the show? Top gear, if you check reflections, you see the camera car. It has been seen numerous times, they are not that sensitive about it now, its part of the show. As for the other show you refer to, if they did indeed include the camera, it would be a lot better than trying to watch what would otherwise be a very boring program... bring it on, at least its "something" to watch. but you are thinking of it from the perspective of a person who doesn't like those sorts of program. perhaps think of it as if you were watching a making of The English Patient documentary, and they kept having Hugh Grant wander into camera. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 13, 2017 9:54:24 GMT
Top gear, if you check reflections, you see the camera car. It has been seen numerous times, they are not that sensitive about it now, its part of the show. As for the other show you refer to, if they did indeed include the camera, it would be a lot better than trying to watch what would otherwise be a very boring program... bring it on, at least its "something" to watch. but you are thinking of it from the perspective of a person who doesn't like those sorts of program. perhaps think of it as if you were watching a making of The English Patient documentary, and they kept having Hugh Grant wander into camera. Keep Going... when you cover all teevee programs that dont allow a camera into shot, you have almost a complete list of the [redacted] kind of TeeVee I dont watch?... High Grant wandering into things, perhaps wander into space, the space over beachy head after wandering off the cliff?.. now thats the kind of wandering I want to see him do... without a parachute. To say I dislike him is akin to most Americans disliking Putin, Gorbachov, or any other "Commie" leader, to be honest Hugh Grant is beneath Kim-Done-Ill or whatever the name of that north korean leader is in my own "persons of worth" list, I dont think he rates higher than Bin-Bagged-Laden, because of the harm he has done to British "Stereotype" on film. But then again, anyone who thinks Hugh Grant is a good representation of British is a fool, if anyone thinks he is a good actor, they are sadly mistaken. My personal preference is for science based TeeVee, which is why my most watched canners are Discovery, Diso Science, and that like, or the comedy channels where it doesnt really matter, and if there was a shot of a camera man laughing at the jokes, is that any difference than them showing the audience?.. This is why I ask this question, I am fully aware that my own preferences are skewed. Especially when, whilst watching the recent series by David Attenborough, the 10 mins "Making of" section at thye end of the shows are just as enjoyable as the main shows, because you get to see the crew in action. And that for me is TeeVee "GOLD", because it is informative, and sometimes, a LOT of fun. |
|
