dwanollah
Guest
Nov 27, 2024 23:44:07 GMT -4
|
Post by dwanollah on Sept 27, 2009 18:25:04 GMT -4
NO! Not really?!
There's the one in Star Wars where Luke, freshly returned from blowing up the Death Star, is getting out of his X-Wing. Princess Leia's running over, calling "LUKE!!" And Luke goes, "CARRIE!!"
|
|
|
|
Post by SweetOblivion on Sept 27, 2009 19:38:36 GMT -4
NO! Not really?! There's the one in Star Wars where Luke, freshly returned from blowing up the Death Star, is getting out of his X-Wing. Princess Leia's running over, calling "LUKE!!" And Luke goes, "CARRIE!!" Fisher, Lucas and Hamill have all sworn that he was saying "Hey!" not "Carrie!". I don't know, sounds like it could be either one. |
|
dwanollah
Guest
Nov 27, 2024 23:44:07 GMT -4
|
Post by dwanollah on Sept 27, 2009 19:47:41 GMT -4
NO! Not really?! There's the one in Star Wars where Luke, freshly returned from blowing up the Death Star, is getting out of his X-Wing. Princess Leia's running over, calling "LUKE!!" And Luke goes, "CARRIE!!" Fisher, Lucas and Hamill have all sworn that he was saying "Hey!" not "Carrie!". I don't know, sounds like it could be either one. No! I want to believe it's a big ol' flub! *foot stomp* At least no one's denying the head-bonking stormtrooper.... |
|
|
|
Post by kostgard on Sept 27, 2009 19:58:29 GMT -4
I don't understand how shit like that happens, either. Because it isn't like there are just, like, three people on the set. You'd think of all the cast members, directors, script supervisors, grips, lighting and camera people, you'd think SOMEONE would say, "Uh, that should be 'Cole' not 'Tom.'"
But I guess it happens a lot. In the 2005 Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice there is one scene where Mr. Bingley's sister turns to him and addresses him by his name, Charles. Only listening to the commentary, the director said that she had accidentally called him "George." Well, it's great that someone actually caught it along the way and the correct name was dubbed in during post, but I just don't understand how no one on the set noticed when it originally happened.
And I've noticed how Orlando Bloom's eyes would suddenly go brown in TLOTR films. I guess on days when they said "Don't bother with the contacts" thinking that he'd have no close-ups, except you can totally see. And I'm sorry, with the huge effects budget those movies had, how much extra money would it have cost to take one of the special effects guys to change his eyes to blue while they're doing everything else?
But the one that really sticks in my craw is in the Harry Potter movies when it is totally obvious that about 80% of the time they can't be arsed to draw the scar on his forehead. Honestly, how much time does that take? It can't be more than 10-20 minutes, especially since I'm sure they use some sort of stencil and it isn't drawn freehand so it looks the same all the time. In the first couple movies I thought maybe they just wanted to get the kid out of the makeup chair as soon as possible. But for a while now he's been old enough to handle an extra 10 minutes in the makeup chair. And again - it isn't like they can't do it because there's no room in the budget. That's just laziness.
|
|
|
|
Post by angelaudie on Sept 28, 2009 0:51:02 GMT -4
Man, you learn something new everyday. I can see how an actor could make the mistake of using the actor's name instead of the character's name. They have to do scenes over and over again and it has to get tiring after awhile. So, yeah I can see how an actor may screw up like that. But, as stated earlier, how does nobody not notice the actor used the wrong name? It's not like trying to remember if the actor held a glass in the left or right hand in the previous take! You would catching the wrong name would be easiest mistake to catch! I don't get this either just like I don't get ignoring Orlando's ever changing eye color or ignoring it's obvious eomer is now being played by someone who isn't Karl Urban. Do the directors and producers honestly think people don't notice these things? In Gladiator there is a scene in the arena where a chariot that Maximus and his men are fighting off falls on it's side and slides in the wall. If you look carefully as the chariot is sliding into the wall an air tank, probably needed to pull the stunt off, is visible. In Ocean's 11 Matt Damon and Brad Pitt are standing around waiting for Julia Roberts to show up. At the beginning of the scene Brad Pitt is holding a glass of shrimp. The glass mysteriously turns into a plate of shrimp and them back to a glass. But LOTR:TT provides me with my favorite movie screw up. I can't believe I forgot to mention it last night! A little background is needed first. Originally Arwen was supposed to fight in the Battle of Helms Deep. Liv Tyler shot scenes and all. But eventually someone smart realized turning Arwen into Arwen Evenstar: Warrior Elf was a bad idea. So, they took all her scenes out. Or so they thought. If you look closely, after Eomer and Gandalf storm the Orcs, you can see Arwen in the background. It's when they show Eomer stabbing Orcs. Think I'm crazy? Check these out! |
|
|
|
Post by SweetOblivion on Sept 28, 2009 1:05:05 GMT -4
Fisher, Lucas and Hamill have all sworn that he was saying "Hey!" not "Carrie!". I don't know, sounds like it could be either one. At least no one's denying the head-bonking stormtrooper.... Shit, no. They went back in and added a sound effect to it in one of the dvd releases. There's a lot of flubs in that movie. That's right up there with the driving scene in Romy and Michelle, where from one angle she's holding a bag of chips, and from the other angle she's holding a soda. The script supervisor fell asleep on that one. |
|
|
|
Post by Martini Girl on Sept 28, 2009 17:48:59 GMT -4
One of the cool aspects of my job is having below the line guys come in and talk about their craft. Two weeks ago, we had Rick Baker and Shane Mahan come in to talk about their work in special effects. First, let me say, both are great guys and it's awe inspiring to see their work up close. Oh, and the war stories they can tell (cause they've worked with all the best directors)...
But onto the issue at hand. Inconsistencies. You know you're asking for trouble when a director can't pull the trigger and just make decisions when he needs to-- like in pre-production when it helps the entire process. If he can't do this, then most, if not all of pre-production is wasted-- it's why the movies cost so much flipping money!
Then when production starts, the director needs everything "now!!!!!!!". Or the director tells them not to worry about something because they have days before they shoot it. They've learned not to believe directors when they say that, because they kept getting burned. Another example they gave is when the director says to just make half of something because not all of it will be seen... then changes his mind mid scene, and wonders why they didn't build a more complete effect.
When you work like that, mistakes are bound to happen (not that that excuses anything).
I also learned that with some of these blockbusters, studios shorten the shooting schedule, thus making it impossible for any one special effects shop to do all the work before the movie opens. Therefore, they farm out certain sequences... and that ensures mistakes more likely to happen. They're also working 17-18 hours a day with almost no breaks, and everything is in chaos. This-- according to them-- is the norm. Go figure.
Something else that might happen in the editing suite for example: Brad Pitt is eating shrimp cocktail and talking to Matt Damon. The director yells "action" and they begin their scene. The director yells cut. They do this a couple more times to find their rhythm. They move on to new scenes. Then the editor comes into the mix, and finds out that just when Brad is eating his shrimp during the first take, somethings askew in the background.... so he/she looks at the other takes, and finds that the scene that works best, or they re shoot the scene days or weeks later.... and they don't have the fricking bowl anymore so they use a plate..... It's not so much that the editor isn't doing his/her job....it's just that the choices they were given kind of sucked, and they're going with the lesser of the two evils. It doesn't explain everything away... but it's definitely a reason why some things change.
I tell you, after listening to these guys talk, it's a miracle movies are made at all. It's lunacy!!
|
|
|
|
Post by kostgard on Sept 28, 2009 18:36:55 GMT -4
Thanks for sharing that (for some reason I thought Rick Baker was dead. Did some other special effects guy die recently? Stan Winston, maybe?)
I can understand some things can't be helped and when you have to go back and do reshoots sometimes things just aren't around anymore. But some things just have to be laziness - like Harry Potter's scar. There's no reason I can think of why a makeup artist who has to be there every day anyway can't just whip out the stencil and slap that lightning bolt on his forehead.
I would love to talk to an editor some time. I'm fascinated by that job because they can really have as big an effect on the tone of a show/movie as a director with their choices. And it's been on my brain lately because the editing on one of my favorite shows suuuuuuuuuucks. I know it's a show that doesn't have a huge budget and it's an hour-long drama that knocks out an episode in 7 days so they gotta work fast, but the editing is truly terrible and I wanna know why it happens.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 23:44:07 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2009 20:53:26 GMT -4
Stan Winston died earlier this year If you're really interested in editing, I highly recommend The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film by Michael Ondaatje. It's a series of interviews between Ondaatje and Walter Murch, who's worked with Coppola on The Godfather trilogy and The Conversation and edited The English Patient among others. I read it for a film course in college, and I found it utterly fascinating (my professor is actually friendly with Ondaatje and he gave a talk at campus around the same time, it was great.) One thing that I remembered is Murch talking about how a continuity mistake in the actors' line readings for a pivotal scene in The Conversation wound up solving a huge problem. |
|
|
|
Post by angelaudie on Jan 31, 2010 0:08:55 GMT -4
Ok, so my mom and I recently watched Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves on blu-ray yesterday. Now, as I stated in the unpopular movie opinions thread I do enjoy this movie even though I probably shouldn't. But OMG! It is screw ups galore! It's obvious the writers and producers never bothered to crack up a history book or learn anything about what life was like in that time!
Let's start with the obvious. Robin is born and raised in England yet he has an American accent. Same thing with Will Scarlet. Was a dialect coach too expensive to hire?
Nottingham makes a big deal out of needing to marry Marian because she's the king's cousin and if he's married to her he can overthrow Richard and become king. Ummm, writers? Remember a guy named Prince John? He's mentioned many times in Robin Hood tales. He was also Richard's younger brother and next in line to the throne. He signed a document called the Magna Carta. REMEMBER HIM?! I have a feeling if Nottingham strolled in and was all, "Hey, I married Marian so I'm the king now!" John would have been "Oh hell to the no! If anyone in this room is going to overthrow Richard it's going to be me! You know the guy next in line to the throne!"
Ok, Hollywood I get portraying Celts as barbarians that do not take baths, are all hairy, painted blue, and practicing paganism is much more fun but by the 12th century we were taking baths, stopped paining ourselves blue, and were even learning about this dude named Jesus.
Azeem is an amazing guy. Somehow he is managed to bring a telescope to England even though it wasn't invented yet! Though I kinda let this one slide since I think it was supposed to demonstrate the Islamic world was more advanced than the so-called learned Christians.
After Robin makes a big speech about fighting Nottingham they have this sequence showing the peasants making weapons. The first thing you see in this sequence is them making metal arrowheads. I have a feeling ores just isn't that easy to find in Sherwood Forest and even if they did stumble upon some it's not easy to get the metal out! A fire (yellow flames no less!) isn't going to do it. Also, I don't think they nylon string for the bows had been invented yet!
There are many more but these are the ones that jump to mind right off hand.
|
|
