|
Serious answer: yes ISO and aperture are things you deal with on film cinema gear just as much as digital video gear, see Kubrick's infamous f/0.7 lens for candlelight shots. Shithead answer: how the gently caress can you not at least reason this poo poo out extrapolating from your own experience, why would older cameras literally be missing two points of the exposure triad? Babysitter Super Sleuth fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Serious answer: yes ISO and aperture are things you deal with on film cinema gear just as much as digital video gear, see Kubrick's infamous f/0.7 lens for candlelight shots. 0.7? Christ. I want one. But anyway, of course the exposure triad has been around since for ever, that is the basic idea of how cameras work. I know they weren't invented recently, that's not really the point of my question. Granted, I would never say I knew everything about the topic, the reason I ask questions is because I want to learn new stuff, I've been trying to come off as humble - clearly I've accidentally come off as willfully ignorant. I said 'to worry about' because my question pertains to the level of esoteric distance between the director and the use of the camera on sets back then - which I will happily admit I don't know enough to be an authority on. That admission is tacit in my asking a question, is it not? Case in point, did Kubrick's f/0.7 lens have an adjustable aperture, or would he have also had to have f/1.4 lenses, f/3, etc? In other words, once you picked up the camera on set with the lens on, were there any options on the camera itself to gently caress up, or would that choice have already been made earlier down the line - hence the cameraman not 'having to worry about it'? If so, then Smith might never have had to know what these things are, because to him you're just picking up a camera with film in it and a lens on and shooting, which all magically exposes correctly. This observation was the setup to my silly joke about Smith's choice of f-stops if he ever did have to make such a decision. In retrospect it's kind of obvious the aperture would be adjustable, but in a world of fixed focal-point lenses I'm never sure. From the sound of Smith's setup, his DP made all these choices for him to get the shot the way he wanted it, to the point he didn't even know about focal lengths. What else doesn't he know about the process? Hence my joke. (Oh and technically mr. stefan, cameras literally were missing those two points, because ISO was a property of the film stock, not the camera, and aperture size is property of the lenses.) Edit: Sorry about the derail, I really am. Can we please go back to discussing Kevin Smith? Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
The lens thing probably wasn't the sole problem. It was that combined with being high and wearing jorts and acting like an unprofessional fanboy. Would love to hear Bruce Willis' side of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Somehow I imagine Willis the same way: high and wearing jorts
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Toady posted:The lens thing probably wasn't the sole problem. It was that combined with being high and wearing jorts and acting like an unprofessional fanboy. Would love to hear Bruce Willis' side of it. Based on other things I've seen of Willis I'm more than willing to believe that he's a giant unrelenting rear end in a top hat. I just don't see why Smith needs to whine about it like a little bitch so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:My question was pertinent to smith. I was tacitly asking 'would Smith ever encounter these basic things on-set in the 90's or would there have been multiple people doing it for him, thus making him not knowing it all that bad?' rather than 'how do old movie cameras work, I have literally no idea?' I do not know what cameras or lenses Miramax productions used back then. Do you folks know? This is a serious question, I'm actually kind of interested now Would he deal with things that effected: Number of lights in a shot, crew size, types of lights on shot, grain, time between setups, DOF, amount of shooting time, and, oh yeah, how the picture looks. In pre-production Smith should've been making dozens upon dozens of decisions that impacted the look of the film. From color schemes to film stock choices. He should have at least a cursory knowledge of these things because 1.) it is his profession 2.) he's holding up production by stumbling around not knowing what he wants or if it's possible to have what he wants. Even if he is not physically touching the camera, he should have an idea of how it works, just as him having a general interest in what he is doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
I dig most of Smith's movies and generally find him to be a likeable dude with some funky opinions that he is sometimes very bullheaded about. That said, here's why the whole Bruce Willis thing bugs me: Kevin Smith worked with Bruce Willis on Live Free Or Die Hard and tells a very similar story about that experience. The only difference is that when he was talking about Die Hard he was fawning about how Bruce Willis is the coolest guy ever. Bruce is throwing out script-pages, showing up late, slowing production and costing the studio hundreds of thousands of dollars every day, but man he's just the coolest guy ever because he's Bruce loving Willis. Then on the set of Cop Out he pulls the same kind of poo poo but this time it's not cool because Smith has to actually deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
I honestly never got the love for Smith's movies, even as his target audience. The only thing I remember from Dogma is how incredibly boring it was, and that it never seemed to end. Clerks was okay, but as someone earlier mentioned, the dialogue in his movies feels so inorganic and written. ...of SCIENCE! posted:There was also a deleted scene in Chasing Amy where two strawmen parrot lines from negative reviews of Mallrats and he responds by destroying their store and writing them a check to pay for the damages because he's rich as gently caress from the thing they're criticizing. How far does your head have to be up your own rear end to shoot that scene?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Bruce Willis was practically fired from Expendables 3 (wanted too much money for too few days of shooting and wasn't asked back) by Stallone who was not nice when talking about it in the press. It's safe to say Kevin Smith isn't the reason why Willis was so insufferable on-set in Cop Out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
I've heard that Bruce Willis has always been a massive primadonna and a colossal pain in the rear end to work with, even back in his Moonlighting days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
If you watch the 12 Monkeys behind the scenes he's arguing with Terry Gilliam all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
side question: finally managed to see Red State. When the dust settled, how did Smith do with that financial experiment w/ the film's scant distribution? I recall him making a travelling roadshow/festival out of it with the ticket price including screenings & Q&A.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Would he deal with things that effected: Number of lights in a shot, crew size, types of lights on shot, grain, time between setups, DOF, amount of shooting time, and, oh yeah, how the picture looks. In pre-production Smith should've been making dozens upon dozens of decisions that impacted the look of the film. From color schemes to film stock choices. He should have at least a cursory knowledge of these things because 1.) it is his profession 2.) he's holding up production by stumbling around not knowing what he wants or if it's possible to have what he wants. No, no, no. Don't you get it? He's just a cool cat who wants to have a couple of laughs. Things like lenses and film stock and artistry don't matter. This is a man who compared his own movie to a retarded child.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Yeah, which makes me wonder why anyone gives two shits what he does. I mean he's an unabashed pothead nerd who makes niche movies for his niche audience. His latest movie grew out of a stoner convo from his podcast. He's self-aware enough that, at this point, attacking is more snobbish than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:Yeah, which makes me wonder why anyone gives two shits what he does. I mean he's an unabashed pothead nerd who makes niche movies for his niche audience. His latest movie grew out of a stoner convo from his podcast. He's self-aware enough that, at this point, attacking is more snobbish than anything else. A lot of the flak he gets probably has to do with him engaging with internet commentators and professional critics in the first place. I recall him posting on the AICN talkbacks and the Rotten Tomato forums. If it wasn't for that, people would largely ignore him. His films aren't great but they're hardly Uwe Boll bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
This is shallow but I don't even like Clerks any more. I cannot, in good faith, like the works of a grown man who dresses himself like this on a daily basis.  nope. Just can't do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
What are those, JNCO shorts? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:What are those, JNCO shorts? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
seriously, just wear full length jeans & be done w/ it
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
If the truck wasn't there for scale I would have assumed Smith was slowly shrinking inside his clothes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Remember when he got kicked off a flight for being too fat?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Remember when he got kicked off a flight for being too fat?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Remember when he got kicked off a flight for being too fat? Remember when he went on THE TONIGHT SHOW and spent the interview talking about how he's so fat that he sat on a toilet in his comic shop and the thing went to pieces beneath him?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
It's like a weird cross between a 90s suburban Gangster who thinks he's hardcore because he considered shoplifting once, and Billy Joel circa 1983. These should not be your fashion idols, Mr. Smith. No.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
You think that's bad? This is unironically and I poo poo you not I am not making this up what his daughter wore out to dinner the other night I know this because he Instagrammed it as a proud father
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Loathe as I am to bring it up, did anyone actually see "Jay and Silent Bob's Super Groovy Cartoon Movie"? The trailer made it look like probably the worst thing Kevin Smith could possibly make, but I haven't heard anything about it since he did the "$75/seat theater tour" thing with it last year. Near as I can tell there is no DVD. Just curious. It really did look like he had finally made the absolute worst possible thing he's capable of making.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
TheSwami posted:Loathe as I am to bring it up, did anyone actually see "Jay and Silent Bob's Super Groovy Cartoon Movie"? It got attacked for being terrible and he responded with "Hey, I didn't make it, I just authorized it and put my name on it, you can't blame me!" He produced it and everything, and then when it was attacked blamed the writer/director and just kept talking about how it wasn't his fault. He only put up money for it, consulted on the script, gave it characters he created, voice one character, released it via his distribution company, promoted it, toured with it giving Q'n'A's afterwards, but HOW DARE YOU ASSOCIATE IT WITH HIM!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Griff Lee posted:You think that's bad? This is unironically and I poo poo you not I am not making this up what his daughter wore out to dinner the other night I think that dress looks pretty cool in a kitsch, trashy way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:It got attacked for being terrible and he responded with "Hey, I didn't make it, I just authorized it and put my name on it, you can't blame me!" I just watched that trailer and thought it looked horrible. Even the no-budget Clerks-animated parodies like "Heroes" and "Trooper Clerks" from about 10+ years ago looked better. Looks like Smith wrote it, some other guy directed it, but Mewes produced according to Wiki, though. I don't think I even smiled at a single thing in the trailer except how great it sounded for Mewes to be doing something. It's not a bad idea, mind you, but if you're only putting $69K into an animated, full-length movie, you really need someone super passionate about it to invest all of themselves into it. As it is, it reminded me of a late 90s/early 00s Icebox animated short and I can't imagine trying to sit through 90 minutes of that. Even the Aqua Teen movie's budget was about 10-12X that. This from a demo for a Clerks Animated that someone did from back about 10 years ago looks a lot better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-PyTd0Oo5U On thing about the Super Groovy Cartoon Movie that I am really surprised though that it in almost no way resembles the Clerks:TAS design for anything, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
Let's not be cunts and leave his kids out of it, eh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Griff Lee posted:You think that's bad? This is unironically and I poo poo you not I am not making this up what his daughter wore out to dinner the other night This actually owns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
That's Bartpunk as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:It got attacked for being terrible and he responded with "Hey, I didn't make it, I just authorized it and put my name on it, you can't blame me!" All I'm seeing him trying to give credit to Mewes, but maybe I've missed something. JediTalentAgent posted:I don't think I even smiled at a single thing in the trailer except how great it sounded for Mewes to be doing something. This is precisely why the Groovy Movie was made. Dead Snoopy posted:side question: finally managed to see Red State. When the dust settled, how did Smith do with that financial experiment w/ the film's scant distribution? I recall him making a travelling roadshow/festival out of it with the ticket price including screenings & Q&A. As of 2011 Smith said it made $6mil total compared to a $4mil budget. For the format of release that's pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 03:55
|
|
ME
|
revdrkevind posted:This is precisely why the Groovy Movie was made. Really, though, I honestly think Mewes does a sort of charming/scuzzy/funny-combo guy pretty well. I wished I'd hear about him getting some cartoon and video game voice work or show up on police procedurals as a suspect or something every now and then. However, looking at his IMDB, I'm surprised with how prolific he's been since Clerks 2. Still, I wonder how much of that $69k came out of his pocket as a producer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I just watched that trailer and thought it looked horrible. Even the no-budget Clerks-animated parodies like "Heroes" and "Trooper Clerks" from about 10+ years ago looked better. I honestly went into convulsions after the "let's become superheroes" line and clicked it off just to save my soul.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Would he deal with things that effected: Number of lights in a shot, crew size, types of lights on shot, grain, time between setups, DOF, amount of shooting time, and, oh yeah, how the picture looks. In pre-production Smith should've been making dozens upon dozens of decisions that impacted the look of the film. From color schemes to film stock choices. He should have at least a cursory knowledge of these things because 1.) it is his profession 2.) he's holding up production by stumbling around not knowing what he wants or if it's possible to have what he wants. Wow. gently caress Smith, he is terrible. Like, completely. It puts his complaints about executive meddling in Mallrats into sharp, sharp focus. I need to re-get ahold of a version of Chasing Amy with the commentary track (although it might have found its way online, I know he released the clerks 2 one for free?), where if I remember correctly he admits to A: Thinking it's deep and well-written, and B: Directly stealing shots from other movies because he has no idea how to compose ones for himself. Smith has accidentally made himself into a masterpiece - I have a similar obsession with Uwe Boll, where I'll watch all his movies just to get a feel for the person making them. Boll actually learns a lot over his career and eventually makes good things. Mu Zeta posted:If you watch the 12 Monkeys behind the scenes he's arguing with Terry Gilliam all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Dead Snoopy posted:I honestly went into convulsions after the "let's become superheroes" line and clicked it off just to save my soul. Don't get me wrong, though, I think there's a chance that an animated Clerks or Viewaskewniverse property can be done pretty well and be goofy. I think Clerks:TAS showed that. I'm not even complaining about the director/animator because it seems more like direction is based more around a webtoon style and not a long-form movie. It's something that Mewes and Smith should have figured earlier that just because they can toss a little money into a project like this with a little reward, a poorly-received product can't help the brand's value. For what little they make, what little press it gets them, it will probably make it that much harder to actually try to get a larger or better production of it made down the road. Don't get me wrong, I think there's room for a BM&C-themed cartoon if if it came off as more sincere in a Venture Brothers satire of a genre than broad dirty comedy that is throwing everything at a wall to see what sticks. If they could animate something that looked like it was done in a distinct Allred style, it could be fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Griff Lee posted:You think that's bad? This is unironically and I poo poo you not I am not making this up what his daughter wore out to dinner the other night That owns
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:This is precisely why the Groovy Movie was made. Say what you want about Kevin Smith's professional life, he's helped two friends get treatment for drugs (in Mewes' case, multiple times), helped them with medical expenses, and helped another friend basically live his dream job of running a comic book store. He seems like a cool dude in his personal life, even if professionally he's basically the Peter Principle made flesh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
Griff Lee posted:You think that's bad? This is unironically and I poo poo you not I am not making this up what his daughter wore out to dinner the other night
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 22:10
|
|