Wow that’s longer than I thought! My old boss was obsessed with bringing that down and releasing on subscription same time as cinema, but I read an interesting piece this week that said day and date releases were dead. You think that’s true?
Also just to be clear on the above - I’m not supportive of cinemas maxing our on Marvel - especially Curzon. As @Missed It said, you expect them to offer something different.
Disney’s dominance of the box office is only going to get stronger too.
Disney to be fair have made Star Wars better than episodes 1-3 were and Marvel too, but they're in danger of overkill.
I'm VERY excited about the next Avengers movie though.
Day and date won't work until the films released are any good. Sky's choice of movies is particularly poor for this route. They spend a fortune telling Sky customers it's in cinema and on Sky Movies at the same time. A weird waste of time and money as the people already being marketed to are already Sky subscribers.....
A film about a wrestling family from Norwich where the daughter makes it to WWE - based on a true story. A good family film with plenty of humour and a decent cast. 7.5/10
CAPTAIN MARVEL
Pretty typical Marvel film with Brie Larson in the main role. Nothing really stood out for me apart from a humorous role for Samuel L Jackson and a few gags about the 1990s setting. 6/10
Quite enjoyed Captain Marvel. Good Action and storyline along with some decent gags as you’d expect from the Marvel franchise these days. My daughter loved it. We thought it was good too. Nice tribute to Stan Lee in the opening titles too.
Have to admit I was quite pleasently surprised... I honestly thought that Captain Marvel was going to go down the route of the new Star Wars films where it would be a rubbish storyline to fit with the feminism angle that Brie Larson has been throwing wherever possible
Its a shame really as regardless of her line "this film isnt for white middle aged men" being a joke or not am sure it'll have turned some away from wanting to see it, but its a really good addition to the Marvel Universe; Larson / Samuel L Jackson and especially Ben Mendelsohn are great appointments by the cast - Certainly found it better than Black Panther.
7/10
Nice build up for Avengers: EndGame in the first Post Credit Scene which I cant wait for next Month!!
Have to admit I was quite pleasently surprised... I honestly thought that Captain Marvel was going to go down the route of the new Star Wars films where it would be a rubbish storyline to fit with the feminism angle that Brie Larson has been throwing wherever possible
Its a shame really as regardless of her line "this film isnt for white middle aged men" being a joke or not am sure it'll have turned some away from wanting to see it, but its a really good addition to the Marvel Universe; Larson / Samuel L Jackson and especially Ben Mendelsohn are great appointments by the cast - Certainly found it better than Black Panther.
7/10
Nice build up for Avengers: EndGame in the first Post Credit Scene which I cant wait for next Month!!
Nowhere near as good as Black Panther. The script was pretty predictable and it was only really the presence of Samuel L Jackson and a few 90s jokes that lifted it.
The trouble with Marvel films is the scripts are becoming laboured and they think they're far cleverer than they are. The last standout Marvel film for me was Logan.
Have to admit I was quite pleasently surprised... I honestly thought that Captain Marvel was going to go down the route of the new Star Wars films where it would be a rubbish storyline to fit with the feminism angle that Brie Larson has been throwing wherever possible
Its a shame really as regardless of her line "this film isnt for white middle aged men" being a joke or not am sure it'll have turned some away from wanting to see it, but its a really good addition to the Marvel Universe; Larson / Samuel L Jackson and especially Ben Mendelsohn are great appointments by the cast - Certainly found it better than Black Panther.
7/10
Nice build up for Avengers: EndGame in the first Post Credit Scene which I cant wait for next Month!!
Nowhere near as good as Black Panther. The script was pretty predictable and it was only really the presence of Samuel L Jackson and a few 90s jokes that lifted it.
The trouble with Marvel films is the scripts are becoming laboured and they think they're far cleverer than they are. The last standout Marvel film for me was Logan.
I've been hearing bad things about what they did with Nick Fury, retrospectively messing with him. I suppose I shouldn't really be commenting as I haven't seen either film but Logan isn't strictly a Marvel movie. Fox own the rights to X-Men so those films are separate from the MCU.
Now that Disney are buying Fox, i wouldn't be surprised if Kevin Feige wants to start again with the X-Men as centre of the MCU when the current Avengers storyline and those actors have finished.
Oh without doubt Feige plans to incorporate both Fantastic Four and X-Men into the current MCU once the Fox deal is complete.
Like you say though he plans to completely restart the whole storyline with new actors... Yet as someone who loves what Feige has done so far I've got a feeling he's a proper timeline on when he wants characters involved yet cant see either of those two coming under the MCU for a few more years yet
Logan is a Marvel character although it was distributed by Fox. I'm not really sure if Logan shouldn't be specified as a Marvel film?
Fox own the movie rights to X-Men. When Marvel Comics were in desperate need of cash and looking bankruptcy in the eye they sold off movie rights, even part of the character rights too. This is how it ends up that Marvel Studios didn't have the rights to their single most iconic character, Spiderman. They can only use Spiderman in Avengers movies now after they made a sharing deal with Sony/paramount, although there's talk that the plug is getting pulled on that.
Marvel only started making money when they set up their own movie studio to make films for the characters they still had rights too. (Marvel comics is still in big trouble trying to sell its crappy comics). Some of their very best characters, X-Men, Silver Surfer, Fantastic Four, Spiderman don't belong to Marvel/Disney, so can't join in the Marvel cinematic universe stories (at least not until Disney have bought every other film studio left!!)
In some ways its a good thing. They can make very different movies like Logan and Deadpool without having to fit everything round a cumbersome multi character continuity, where the story is a slave to what's going to happen 3 or 4 films down the line.
Talking of Marvel I watched Venom last night. Corniest dialogue ive seen in a film, was honestly like it was written by an 11 year old. CGI was good, but then that’s standard these days.
Logan is a Marvel character although it was distributed by Fox. I'm not really sure if Logan shouldn't be specified as a Marvel film?
Fox own the movie rights to X-Men. When Marvel Comics were in separate need if cash and looking bankruptcy in the eye they sold off movie rights, even part of the character rights too. This is how it ends up that Marvel Studios didn't have the rights to their single most iconic character, Spiderman. They can only use Spiderman in Avengers movies now after they made a sharing deal with Sony/paramount, although there's talk that the plug is getting pulled on that.
Marvel only started making money when they set up their own movie studio to make films for the characters they still had rights too. (Marvel comics is still in big trouble trying to sell its crappy comics). Some of their very best characters, X-Men, Silver Surfer, Fantastic Four, Spiderman don't belong to Marvel/Disney, so can't join in the Marvel cinematic universe stories (at least not until Disney have bought every other film studio left!!)
In some ways its a good thing. They can make very different movies like Logan and Deadpool without having to fit everything round a cumbersome multi character continuity, where the story is a slave to what's going to hsppen 3 or 4 films down the line.
Just to add to this, later this year Marvel/ Disney will almost certainly own Fantastic Four, Deadpool and X-Men, so expect them to get rebooted.
Fox had a bunch of X-Men movies lined up, but Disney have cut them loose. There's Dark Phoenix and New Mutants still to come out, but it's unlikely any more will be made with the same actors/ characters. Maybe a Gambit movie. Maybe.
Sony are clinging on to Spider-Man and all the villains related to that character. They have a relationship now with Disney, but it might not last.
Universal still own the distribution rights to Incredible Hulk, which is why Hulk only plays a supporting role in MCU movies.
Saw Captain Marvel. Found it to be the most boring Marvel movie so far. Jackson was good. Larson was decent. Nobody else worth mentioning. Just felt like a bridge between movies to me. Like those One Shots they used to do. The character arc was almost non-existent, set up at the start and remembered just before the end. The 'twist' is pure Disney these days too. Same sort of thing we've seen in Incredibles 2, Coco and I bet, Spider-Man: Far From Home.
And I say this having sat through The White Crow a few hours earlier. A slow, ponderous film about a russian ballet dancer.
In other news - Once Upon A Time In London is the worst film I have seen since Young Einstein.
And Sharkwater Extinction is interesting, but completely derailed by the death of the filmmaker halfway through.
Saw Captain Marvel. Found it to be the most boring Marvel movie so far. Jackson was good. Larson was decent. Nobody else worth mentioning. Just felt like a bridge between movies to me. Like those One Shots they used to do. The character arc was almost non-existent, set up at the start and remembered just before the end. The 'twist' is pure Disney these days too. Same sort of thing we've seen in Incredibles 2, Coco and I bet, Spider-Man: Far From Home.
And I say this having sat through The White Crow a few hours earlier. A slow, ponderous film about a russian ballet dancer.
In other news - Once Upon A Time In London is the worst film I have seen since Young Einstein.
And Sharkwater Extinction is interesting, but completely derailed by the death of the filmmaker halfway through.
Most films about gangsters in London are dreadful -
Just seen "A star is born" I like Bradley Cooper... a lot, and he did ok in this flick, but Lady Gaga.....urghhh.....it came across to me as a showcase of her singing and to be honest I don't think she added anything to the story at all. I lost interest completely about 15 minutes before the end and went to get a cup of tea. 4/10
Thoroughly enjoyed Captain Marvel. Watched in a packed cinema and once they settled down they reacted positively to the film. Huge laughs when the cat thing happened. These are not ground breaking movies, nor meant to be, but they are tons of fun. Brie Larson is perfect for the role. Nice tribute to Stan Lee at the start.
Just seen "A star is born" I like Bradley Cooper... a lot, and he did ok in this flick, but Lady Gaga.....urghhh.....it came across to me as a showcase of her singing and to be honest I don't think she added anything to the story at all. I lost interest completely about 15 minutes before the end and went to get a cup of tea. 4/10
I gave it more than a four but I agree about Lady Ga Ga . She completely ruins the second half of the movie .
Fighting with my Family. Way better than I was expecting. I’m not particularly interested in wrestling, WWE or otherwise, but this was a good yarn, with some excellent performances. Lovely film. 7.5/10
Fighting with my Family. Way better than I was expecting. I’m not particularly interested in wrestling, WWE or otherwise, but this was a good yarn, with some excellent performances. 7.5/10
Legal drama about the lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her battle for equal rights for women in the USA. Very watchable, interesting and accessible - Felicity Jones plays Bader. 7/10
Legal drama about the lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her battle for equal rights for women in the USA. Very watchable, interesting and accessible - Felicity Jones plays Bader. 7/10
Agree and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a remarkable women.
Went to see ‘The Aftermath’ a few days ago. Also very watchable. Starring Keira Knightley, Alexander Skarsgård and Jason Clarke. Story set in the ruins of Hamburg at the end of WWII. Story of shattered lives on both sides of the conflict trying to cope with the past.
Instant Family - Horribly sickly sweet “so called “comedy - I laughed once . Predictable nonsense I hate nearly everything Mark Wahlberg does nowadays. 4 out of 10
Instant Family - Horribly sickly sweet “so called “comedy - I laughed once . Predictable nonsense I hate nearly everything Mark Wahlberg does nowadays. 4 out of 10
I own a lump of wood that can act better than Wahlberg.
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
Thanks Jimmy.
Interesting article, including the take on it that Ottman saved the movie, but it doesn’t explain how shit that scene is when that other bloke demonstrates how it could’ve been improved with nothing but the footage from the final cut! I find it hard to believe he couldn’t have done better, which to me makes him winning an Oscar for it somewhat ludicrous.
Also, interesting explanation of how scenes are shot, but one question - if you need six shots of the same conversation, why can’t you get two or three of them at a time? Surely you could set up more than one of those angles so the other cameras can’t be seen? Seems bizarre to shoot a scene 6 times when you could do it in two or three? Or am I missing something?
Sorry to ask stupid questions, but I find this sort of thing fascinating!
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
Thanks, Jimmy, I guess I knew that but you've explained it more clearly than I would have done. I'm teaching GCSE Film Studies (started recently) and it's a steep learning curve. I tend to get the pupils to concentrate on cinematography and mise-en-scene as that's easier, I think. I'm teaching 'Whiplash' now and saw a video online the other day highly praising the editing as it analysed two key scenes. In addition to your explanation above, it pointed out how camera movements were significant during a conversation such as pulling away from a face to signify an emotional detachment growing due to something that has been said.
Comments
I'm VERY excited about the next Avengers movie though.
Day and date won't work until the films released are any good. Sky's choice of movies is particularly poor for this route. They spend a fortune telling Sky customers it's in cinema and on Sky Movies at the same time. A weird waste of time and money as the people already being marketed to are already Sky subscribers.....
A film about a wrestling family from Norwich where the daughter makes it to WWE - based on a true story. A good family film with plenty of humour and a decent cast. 7.5/10
CAPTAIN MARVEL
Pretty typical Marvel film with Brie Larson in the main role. Nothing really stood out for me apart from a humorous role for Samuel L Jackson and a few gags about the 1990s setting. 6/10
Nice tribute to Stan Lee in the opening titles too.
Its a shame really as regardless of her line "this film isnt for white middle aged men" being a joke or not am sure it'll have turned some away from wanting to see it, but its a really good addition to the Marvel Universe; Larson / Samuel L Jackson and especially Ben Mendelsohn are great appointments by the cast - Certainly found it better than Black Panther.
7/10
Nice build up for Avengers: EndGame in the first Post Credit Scene which I cant wait for next Month!!
The trouble with Marvel films is the scripts are becoming laboured and they think they're far cleverer than they are. The last standout Marvel film for me was Logan.
Like you say though he plans to completely restart the whole storyline with new actors... Yet as someone who loves what Feige has done so far I've got a feeling he's a proper timeline on when he wants characters involved yet cant see either of those two coming under the MCU for a few more years yet
Marvel only started making money when they set up their own movie studio to make films for the characters they still had rights too. (Marvel comics is still in big trouble trying to sell its crappy comics). Some of their very best characters, X-Men, Silver Surfer, Fantastic Four, Spiderman don't belong to Marvel/Disney, so can't join in the Marvel cinematic universe stories (at least not until Disney have bought every other film studio left!!)
In some ways its a good thing. They can make very different movies like Logan and Deadpool without having to fit everything round a cumbersome multi character continuity, where the story is a slave to what's going to happen 3 or 4 films down the line.
Just to add to this, later this year Marvel/ Disney will almost certainly own Fantastic Four, Deadpool and X-Men, so expect them to get rebooted.
Fox had a bunch of X-Men movies lined up, but Disney have cut them loose. There's Dark Phoenix and New Mutants still to come out, but it's unlikely any more will be made with the same actors/ characters. Maybe a Gambit movie. Maybe.
Sony are clinging on to Spider-Man and all the villains related to that character. They have a relationship now with Disney, but it might not last.
Universal still own the distribution rights to Incredible Hulk, which is why Hulk only plays a supporting role in MCU movies.
https://media.comicbook.com/2017/12/updated-marvel-character-ownership-rights-after-fox-dinsey-1066088.jpg
Edit - when you see the Marvel logo before a Fox or Sony movie, that's NOT Marvel Studios, which is owned by Disney. ]
Edit 2 - Sorry, I didn't read previous posts before prattling on.
And I say this having sat through The White Crow a few hours earlier. A slow, ponderous film about a russian ballet dancer.
In other news - Once Upon A Time In London is the worst film I have seen since Young Einstein.
And Sharkwater Extinction is interesting, but completely derailed by the death of the filmmaker halfway through.
A great spoof!
Legal drama about the lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her battle for equal rights for women in the USA. Very watchable, interesting and accessible - Felicity Jones plays Bader. 7/10
Went to see ‘The Aftermath’ a few days ago. Also very watchable. Starring Keira Knightley, Alexander Skarsgård and Jason Clarke. Story set in the ruins of Hamburg at the end of WWII. Story of shattered lives on both sides of the conflict trying to cope with the past.
Predictable nonsense
I hate nearly everything Mark Wahlberg does nowadays.
4 out of 10
7 out of 10
It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard?
Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people
fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
Interesting article, including the take on it that Ottman saved the movie, but it doesn’t explain how shit that scene is when that other bloke demonstrates how it could’ve been improved with nothing but the footage from the final cut! I find it hard to believe he couldn’t have done better, which to me makes him winning an Oscar for it somewhat ludicrous.
Also, interesting explanation of how scenes are shot, but one question - if you need six shots of the same conversation, why can’t you get two or three of them at a time? Surely you could set up more than one of those angles so the other cameras can’t be seen? Seems bizarre to shoot a scene 6 times when you could do it in two or three? Or am I missing something?
Sorry to ask stupid questions, but I find this sort of thing fascinating!