For me it's finding out that when two people are talking they film one actor saying all of their lines in a row then swap and film the other actor's. Sometimes the back of the actor not speaking isn't even loaded by the actor. Then they interleave the conversation in editing.
he means that the guy in picrel is potentially not the real actor, and almost certainly any dialogue he says in that conversation is post-edited, so he's not talking live.
If you watch the mouth / jaw motions of these characters during these conversations, it almost never lines up properly with what they're saying
I used stand-ins in my highschool movies because I had to film with the sports students, who were often in tournaments. As long as the pants are the same fit, the legs you see in the in-between the legs framed shot belong to the character in the movie, not the actor, as far as the audience is concerned. We had a girl stand in for a guy once and nobody fricking noticed.
Italian productions would redub entire movie because the actors, who were casted internationally (lots of Americans, British, Italians, Spanish, French among others), were made to say their lines in their native languages. I guess it was easier to market to the US and European market since they would do a bunch of languages at the same time.
>backlot for sure. any time you see those Seinfeld-tier short streets, you know it's a backlot.
yup, those streets look waay too narrow to be in an actual city.
>characters eats something on screen >shows the food going in their mouth and maybe making a few chewing motions >camera cuts away to something else before they swallow
I always imagine them spitting the food out
>what is subtext
sure is summer
For me, it was finding out that most lines in a movie are re-recorded afterwards, you're not even hearing the actor speak live most of the time.
>I TALKED to Barzini
For me it's finding out that when two people are talking they film one actor saying all of their lines in a row then swap and film the other actor's. Sometimes the back of the actor not speaking isn't even loaded by the actor. Then they interleave the conversation in editing.
>Sometimes the back of the actor not speaking isn't even loaded by the actor.
can you rephrase this?
he means that the guy in picrel is potentially not the real actor, and almost certainly any dialogue he says in that conversation is post-edited, so he's not talking live.
If you watch the mouth / jaw motions of these characters during these conversations, it almost never lines up properly with what they're saying
okay it makes sense now, thanks.
I used stand-ins in my highschool movies because I had to film with the sports students, who were often in tournaments. As long as the pants are the same fit, the legs you see in the in-between the legs framed shot belong to the character in the movie, not the actor, as far as the audience is concerned. We had a girl stand in for a guy once and nobody fricking noticed.
Yeah well the boom mic can't always hit both at once.
it's like an italian porn movie from the 90s
Italian productions would redub entire movie because the actors, who were casted internationally (lots of Americans, British, Italians, Spanish, French among others), were made to say their lines in their native languages. I guess it was easier to market to the US and European market since they would do a bunch of languages at the same time.
Very, very dishonest.
anymore? this is so cool. i love how fake show business is. it fascinates me and all i wanna know is how fake it can get to make things look real
Why are there like 3-4 anti Cruise threads right now. I’m always curious what the motivations are behind moronic people
>inb4 Kubrick
idk but this isnt anti cruise thread to me. im actually pretty impressed something like that scene was in a sound stage instead
Kubrick
>kubrick is le pedantic master who goes to great lengths to make everything as authentic as possible
>dude le Sneedbrick is such a perfectionist lmao
>Can't even be arsed to go film outside
kwab
kubrick was afraid of flying and all his movies post 2001 were shot in london where he lived
wonder if he knew what they were going to do with John F. Kennedy Jr
I actually like this shot, it adds to the dreamlike quality of the film
Mogs greenscreen
Okay, so how in the frick did his film this:
?t=56
honestly looks like an indoor studio set.
backlot for sure. any time you see those Seinfeld-tier short streets, you know it's a backlot.
>backlot for sure. any time you see those Seinfeld-tier short streets, you know it's a backlot.
yup, those streets look waay too narrow to be in an actual city.
at first i was just going by the image but after watching it yea it looks outdoor but most definitely at some studio or lot.
wow movies aren't real
that's crazy
>characters eats something on screen
>shows the food going in their mouth and maybe making a few chewing motions
>camera cuts away to something else before they swallow
I always imagine them spitting the food out
>Character never says "Yummu wummy" after audibly gulping tasty food and kissing his mum
Dishonest cinema.
Kubrick hated america. He lived and shot all his films in England
Just found out blood in movies isn't real blood.