Seams a little bit dangerous

[Richard Ragon]

Thought you guys might like this..

http://vimeo.com/channels/soundworkscollection#16867382

p.s. People in this group were going nuts about not being secured in a moving car... Seams a little bit dangerous, just get those right sounds.

-Richard

[RPSharman]

I read the topic, and thought I'd see a picture of a fat guy busting out of his trousers.

I thought the stuff on the train SEEMED pretty fun!  :-)

[Richard Ragon]

I just saw the film with my wife.  I thought that it was pretty good, although a bit campy in spots and never the use of a tripod. My wife said she was bitting her nails on the edge of her seat.  She used to work for CSX, so she had a bit of interest in a 'train movie'.

It's kind of a sleeper of a film, but worth watching.

-Richard

[Jon Gilbert]

Interesting clip, thanks for posting the link, as for the danger, you movie guys are spoilt, that's an average day on a documentary shoot

[Don Coufal]

Richard, I worked on the film and must correct your statment "and never a tripod." The whole film was done on tripods or dollies. It is the long lens that Tony uses that gives it that look.

[Richard Ragon]

Don,

I love the long lens.. don't get me wrong. I do love that look..

It was the constant movement that I'm talking about.. when there's action, it's OK, but no action.. hum..

Example: Two actors in the cab of the engine.. cut to actor one, camera going completely around cab windows. Cut to actor two, camera going completely around cab again, cut back to actor one, and camera going completely around cab again.. It actually took me 'out' of the film.

Maybe because I'm in the biz I see things different, like all the rest of you.  When you notice something that takes you 'out' and you stop being engaged for a few moments..  The goal of a film is to grab you for 90mins, and anything that makes you remember that your sitting in a dark theater is considered a fail.

But.. Don, me and the wife loved the movie.  And, great job on the sound, my hats off too you.

I kept wondering how some of that was pulled off.. It's not exactly easy to film a train, much less get great sound in that environment.

-Richard

[studiomprd]

"  It actually took me 'out' of the film. "

style over substance

[Richard Ragon]

In all fairness Senator, I think that you CAN have both.

I think Micheal Bay knows when you can use those constant movement shots, and when you should just knock it off and let the actors do there thing in a long static frame.

-Richard

[studiomprd]

of course you can have both, but if the viewer starts noticing the shots, they have disconnected, at least somewhat, from the story being told... sucked out of it and into a movie theater.

BTW: this years winner: 127 hours for pic and actor, maybe director.

[Richard Ragon]

I know.. Danny Boyle does it again..

-Richard

[Marc Wielage]

It was the constant movement that I'm talking about.. when there's action, it's OK, but no action.. hum...

Yeah, I agree. Camera action not dictated by dialog or story... it makes no sense. It's like neophyte directors who immediately decide to throw in a 360 pan (or worse, a 360 degree dolly) just to jazz things up. Morons. But a guy like Paul Greengrass (last 2 Bourne movies knows how to do this very well. There's a big difference between a pro and an amateur jerking the camera around.

There's also a million visual cliches that make me crazy. The whole 45-degree shutter thing -- where the visuals have a very staccato look to them, popularized (and done well) in Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan -- that's just done to death today, especially on TV. The moment a gun battle starts, boom, everything gets all hyper-sharp and stuttery.

Pretty good list here:

5 Annoying Trends That Make Every Movie Look the Same

--Marc W.

[mikewest]

Interesting clip

Did not look dangerous to me, I've done far riskier things on documentaries

mike

[studiomprd]

I was going to mention that 360 degree circling (not panning) shot, as it seems like since QT's Reservoir Dogs, every wannabe has to include one; sort of a "see I can do that".  Of course QT did not invent that shot, and though there were some that came before, the one I remember as first catching my eye was the 360+ shot of Tom Cruise in "The Color of Money"...

[Jeff Wexler]

I remember my father doing a 360 circling shot with Sandy Dennis, "Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf", 1965.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[studiomprd]

I remember the movie,  but the "shot" did not suck me out of the (rather intense) story!! that is exactly my point!

[Marc Wielage]

Somebody like Haskell Wexler, Tony Scott, or Quentin Tarantino can do a 360-degree shot and I guarantee you, it'll be totally cool. My problem is the neo-wanabees who throw it in for no reason and have no real clue how to pull it off.

We used to see this all the time in TV, and the post supervisor and/or one of the producers would see it. We'd all roll our eyes and go, "ah, the director's showing off again," and we'd tweak it and move on. Very tough shot to light (or boom), since there's not many places to hide the gear.

--Marc W.

[studiomprd]

" Very tough shot to light "

good thing all these wunder-cam's are soooo good that lighting is no longer required!

[Richard Ragon]

Our topic took a turn.. So, I decided to start a new one here:

http://jwsound.net/SMF/index.php?topic=7529.0

-Richard